Mk70 corvette

[johnpjones1775]

An idea I had for the USN to help get the ship numbers we want.

A small surface combatant, maybe 2000-2500tons
It would be build around the idea that during crisis/conflict they can have mk70s or other containerized modules strapped on amidships.

Their regular armament would be simple, and no more than what would be require for MIO missions and basic self defense.
Mk110, RAM, mk38 mod2(save the newer mods for larger ships), flight deck and hangar for 1 MH60 and a few smallish UAVs.

Let’s say we already had a handful deployed when the Red Sea crisis began.
USN flies a load of mk70s out to djoubti and Bahrain, mk70 corvettes in the region already doing piracy patrols pull into port at around 10am and leave by 5pm with 2-3 mk70s embarked amidships, and make best speed for the Red Sea.

They wouldn’t need very fancy radar, they’d rely on datalink for targeting info from larger ships or AWACS.

When the launchers are empty or conflict is over the corvettes return to port offload the launchers and return to their regular duties.

Launchers could be prepositioned or simply flown out in response to an emerging threat.

 

[that_person]

What does this offer over simply increasing payload density on LSCs? This doesn't actually solve any issues,

 

[yeetmahboi]

So, LCS? Which is barely 50% heavier.

Just build more LCS and Connies lol.

 

[johnpjones1775]

What does this offer over simply increasing payload density on LSCs? This doesn't actually solve any issues,

You can’t increase payload density of LCS for the high end fight without sacrificing it’s other capabilities

You really don’t understand the role LCS plays in the fleet do you?

 

[johnpjones1775]

So, LCS? Which is barely 50% heavier.

Just build more LCS and Connies lol.

No.

These replies really show that people don’t understand LCS and it’s role in the fleet.

As Connies, the first ship is currently slated to cost around $900million for reference the burke I served on was $1.2billion, following hulls will likely cost $700-800million. Those prices won’t get us to the fleet size goals that have been set.

 

[yeetmahboi]

fleet size

Fleet size? What fleet size goal has been set in stone exactly? This isn't Reagan.

These replies really show that people don’t understand LCS and it’s role in the fleet.

I don't. May you elaborate?

 

[that_person]

You can’t increase payload density of LCS for the high end fight without sacrificing it’s other capabilities

And you’re illiterate. I said LSCs, not LCS.

You really don’t understand the role LCS plays in the fleet do you?

I’d wager I’m more familiar with the origins and CONOPs of the LCS program than most people here.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Fleet size? What fleet size goal has been set in stone exactly? This isn't Reagan.

I don't. May you elaborate?

The navy indeed has a fleet size goal. That goal is 381 battle force ships.
Nothing is set in stone in the US ever.

An Analysis of the Navy’s 2025 Shipbuilding Plan

At a Glance Each year, as directed by the Congress, the Department of Defense submits a report with the President’s budget describing the Navy’s plan for its future fleet for the next 30 years. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office analyzes the Navy’s 2025 plan and estimates its costs...

www.cbo.gov

LCSes are not AAW escorts. They’re minesweepers, counter FAC vessels, drone motherships.

The additions of VLS will either infringe on their count FAC mission, or completely destroy their aviation capabilities.

The fleet needs more AAW and ASW escorts, as we currently don’t have the ships necessary to provide escorts to MSC ships in the event of a conventional naval conflict. LCS is not that, and any attempt to turn LCS into that, is largely a waste of time and money.

 

[_Del_]

An idea I had for the USN to help get the ship numbers we want.

A small surface combatant, maybe 2000-2500tons
It would be build around the idea that during crisis/conflict they can have mk70s or other containerized modules strapped on amidships.

This is essentially the vision for LUSV. ~2000 tons, long range/endurance, optionally manned, modular payload,16-32 VLS cells

 

[yeetmahboi]

The additions of VLS will either infringe on their count FAC mission, or completely destroy their aviation capabilities.

And noone has been proposing that.

The fleet needs more AAW and ASW escorts, as we currently don’t have the ships necessary to provide escorts to MSC ships in the event of a conventional naval conflict. LCS is not that, and any attempt to turn LCS into that, is largely a waste of time and money.

Refer to above.

Those DEGs are the Connies.

 

[johnpjones1775]

This is essentially the vision for LUSV. ~2000 tons, long range/endurance, optionally manned, modular payload,16-32 VLS cells

Except it cannot conduct MIO missions.

 

[johnpjones1775]

And noone has been proposing that.

Refer to above.

Those DEGs are the Connies.

There are people proposing that.
Part of the lethality upgrade would be removing the 30mm guns for two cell VLS modules in each.
Now the mk70 launchers have already been tested on LCSes, and touted as an upgrade for the ships.
No those aren’t the connies. The connies are just small DDGs. The difference in tonnage between constellation and the Arleigh burke, is 1600 tons, and both have 4 SPY arrays. A flight IIA burke costs $1.2b constellation costs $900m.

Connies are not and will not be a modern equivalent to a DE. Where a burke is the modern equivalent of a WWII CL, connies are equivalent to a WWII DD like a fletcher or gearing.

 

[johnpjones1775]

And you’re illiterate. I said LSCs, not LCS.


I’d wager I’m more familiar with the origins and CONOPs of the LCS program than most people here.

Oh excuse me for assuming you had a typo considering there’s no class of ship that uses the LSC abbreviation or moniker.
The closest we ever came to that was the DDGX program predecessor.

However whatever you think LSC is, increasing payload density is pointless because it ignores the fleet issues that exist.
This does indeed solve a problem.
1. The navy has stated it does not have the hulls to escort MSC ships, or any other civilian ship contracted to support operations during a high end war.

‘You’re on your own’: US sealift can’t count on Navy escorts in the next big war

In a major war, the U.S. Navy would likely have its hands full with combat operations, forcing the nation's civilian mariners to confront the possibility of transporting weapons of war unescorted in contested waters.

www.defensenews.com

2. Even without a major conventional war, we have not had the hulls with high end SAMs available in the Red Sea, with just the LCS USS Indianpolis being the only ship in the Red Sea on many occasions for the past year.

Disparaged, discontinued...and indispensable? Littoral combat ships take on real-world ops

The battle-tested LCS has moved past its reliability problems, surface-forces leaders said.

www.defenseone.com

So yes this ship would solve a problem that the navy has. It is way too heavy, and as a result, the fleet is too small to meet all of its obligations around the globe.
The ship concept I present would be small, and cheap, and provide the fleet with more capability to deploy long range SAM shooters on short notice and in large numbers, while not being overkill for the low end peace time missions.

Edit
We have 20 connies coming in, while we have 9 ticos, and FI Burkes heading out, so our fleet will not be growing in numbers any time soon.

 

[_Del_]

Except it cannot conduct MIO missions.

Can if you put crew on it...

 

[H_K]

A small surface combatant, maybe 2000-2500tons
It would be build around the idea that during crisis/conflict they can have mk70s or other containerized modules strapped on amidships.

Their regular armament would be simple, and no more than what would be require for MIO missions and basic self defense.
Mk110, RAM, mk38 mod2(save the newer mods for larger ships), flight deck and hangar for 1 MH60 and a few smallish UAVs.

I would suggest twin ADL launchers instead of MK70, as ADL is only ~27ft long (vs 40ft) which greatly simplifies top deck installation. This would also eliminate any concerns around slow reaction time. Just need to make sure that these ADL launchers can be easily transported by air (C-17 or C-5) as well as on truck beds.

Your simple platform wouldn’t be much different from what I suggested on the subchaser thread, just a little longer to increase deck area for ADLs.

1800 tonne patrol corvette
D: 1,800 tons
Dim: 88.5 x 14 x 3.3m (overall), 87 x 12.7m (waterline)
S: 26-27 kts on diesels (2x 6.5 or 7.4MW MTU 20V1163)
10 kts electric mode (2x 360 KWe)
R: 6,000 nm @ 15 kts
Crew: 55 pax / 30 days supply

Guns: 1x 40mm 57mm or 76mm main gun, 2x 30x113mm Bushmaster
SUW: 4x or 8x anti-ship missiles
AAW: 1x RAM launcher (21x SAMs)
ASW: Bow sonar + optional VDS & 2x triple torpedo tubes on flight deck
Modular stern bay for 1 or 2x 30ft RHIBs/USVs + 2x 20ft containers
Hangar for 1x helo or 2x UAVs

The modular arrangement would allow for the following:
- Hangar (port): 1x ASW helo or 2x VTUAVs or 1x 20ft container
- Boat bay (starboard): 1x RHIB or 1x ASW USV or 1x 20ft container
- Stern ramps: 2x RHIBs or 1x RHIB + 1x towed sonar
- Stern bay: 2x 20ft containers

The result is a patrol vessel that could take on multiple peacetime and wartime roles - OPV/Coast Guard cutter, ASW sub chaser, merchant vessel escort, littoral combat ship etc. Here I compare to various US designs:

 

[johnpjones1775]

Can if you put crew on it...

Also has no real self defense capabilities, or capabilities to provide overwatch to the boarding parties, unless I missed something where they recently announced they planned to arm them with more than just some missile launchers.

so…then it’s no longer a USV of any sort is it, and without the crew it has essentially no role in the fleet during peacetime.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I would suggest twin ADL launchers instead of MK70, as ADL is only ~27ft long (vs 40ft) which greatly simplifies top deck installation. This would also eliminate any concerns around slow reaction time. Just need to make sure that these ADL launchers can be easily transported by air (C-17 or C-5) as well as on truck beds.

Your simple platform wouldn’t be much different from what I suggested on the subchaser thread, just a little longer to increase deck area for ADLs.

For my concept I would intentionally skip out on any organic sonar, and leave all ASW work to the ship’s aviation assets.

Yeah I’m not sure how easy it is to transport and rush them into position, but also not sure how much it takes to install them. I’m pretty sure the mk70s more or less just plug in after they’ve been chained to the deck.

And a bit off topic that model seems to show that a burke would have to remove SVTT to add those two aft facing ADLs.

 

[that_person]

Oh excuse me for assuming you had a typo considering there’s no class of ship that uses the LSC abbreviation or moniker.
The closest we ever came to that was the DDGX program predecessor.

Large Surface Combatant. It’s a catch-all term for the frontline escort fleet. It’s also referenced in literally every CBO and Annual Shipbuilding Report.

This does indeed solve a problem.
1. The navy has stated it does not have the hulls to escort MSC ships, or any other civilian ship contracted to support operations during a high end war.

Except this doesn’t solve anything, you said so yourself.

They wouldn’t need very fancy radar, they’d rely on datalink for targeting info from larger ships or AWACS.

You’d still be sending LSCs to escort the auxiliaries. Without Aegis, your corvettes are nothing more than missile barges, in which case you should just buy LUSVs at a fraction of the cost.

The ship concept I present would be small, and cheap, and provide the fleet with more capability to deploy long range SAM shooters on short notice and in large numbers

You’re right about the Navy needing more hulls, but this isn’t the way to go about it. Your smaller vessels should be carrying out specialized missions the LSCs can’t do. The LCSs do this just fine. Simply rehashing the traditional escort role with the added negative of requiring a proper escort to function, does nothing.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Simply rehashing the traditional escort role with the added negative of requiring a proper escort to function, does nothing

Does nothing *and add unnecessary redundancy*. The USN looked hard at an SSC escort combatant and built the Connies. Which is why I've made my DEG comment early on. Somehow someone didn't get that.

 

[that_person]

Does nothing *and add unnecessary redundancy*. The USN looked hard at an SSC escort combatant and built the Connies. Which is why I've made my DEG comment early on. Somehow someone didn't get that.

They key here is the Constellations can function on their own. They don’t need to be slaved to a larger ship due to a lack of sensors. The VLS shortfall will be made up with USVs.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Large Surface Combatant. It’s a catch-all term for the frontline escort fleet. It’s also referenced in literally every CBO and Annual Shipbuilding Report.


Except this doesn’t solve anything, you said so yourself.


You’d still be sending LSCs to escort the auxiliaries. Without Aegis, your corvettes are nothing more than missile barges, in which case you should just buy LUSVs at a fraction of the cost.



You’re right about the Navy needing more hulls, but this isn’t the way to go about it. Your smaller vessels should be carrying out specialized missions the LSCs can’t do. The LCSs do this just fine. Simply rehashing the traditional escort role with the added negative of requiring a proper escort to function, does nothing.

No you’d be sending a frigate as group leader. Despite being 7k tons they’re classified as small surface combatants.

But again, no. You don’t need aegis to conduct defensive AAW. Maritime patrol aircraft along the route of travel can provide targeting data even if there’s no FFG in the convoy. Even beyond that, sea giraffe has a range of nearly 300 miles and is plenty enough for a ship to provide AAW escort, all while being a tiny fraction of the cost of a full SPY loadout.

Lmao, so we don’t have the hulls to provide escorts, but you don’t think the navy should be buying and building cheap ships that can do that escort mission.
Man you’re stupid.

 

[johnpjones1775]

They key here is the Constellations can function on their own. They don’t need to be slaved to a larger ship due to a lack of sensors. The VLS shortfall will be made up with USVs.

There is no VLS shortfall. There’s a shortfall of hulls.

It doesn’t really matter much or help the fleet if we build 3 20k ton monstrosities with 200 VLS each, they can still only be in one place doing one thing at a time.

20 ships with 10 VLS each would solve a lot more of our problems than something like HII’s proposed BMD ship or the DDGX will.

 

[that_person]

You don’t need aegis to conduct defensive AAW.

Then what the hell are these corvettes for? They’re just missile barges at this point.

Maritime patrol aircraft along the route of travel can provide targeting data even if there’s no FFG in the convoy.

Thats just explicitly false. The SM-5 concept was abandoned nearly 3 decades ago.

Lmao, so we don’t have the hulls to provide escorts, but you don’t think the navy should be buying and building cheap ships that can do that escort mission.

Never said that. I said we should be buying ships that can operate independently.

 

[that_person]

There is no VLS shortfall.

There will be in the coming decades. The LSC fleet is going to shrink some ~30 hulls.

20 ships with 10 VLS each would solve a lot more of our problems than something like HII’s proposed BMD ship or the DDGX will.

Heavily disagree. You’re losing a ton of sensor coverage, strike capability, and your ability to operate in high-intensity environments. DDG(X) is exactly what the fleet needs.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Then what the hell are these corvettes for? They’re just missile barges at this point.


Thats just explicitly false. The SM-5 concept was abandoned nearly 3 decades ago.


Never said that. I said we should be buying ships that can operate independently.

I literally explained the point to you, but you’re apparently too dense to understand.

I will break it down barney style for you.

Small cheap ships with sea giraffe radar can provide plenty of AAW capability with an unclassified range of 292 miles, and unclassified capability to track 100 air targets at once and 200 surface targets.

Since they’re cheap to build they can be built in bulk. Since they’re small they will only require small crews saving costs on manning. Being small they can be built and repaired in smaller yards.
Relying on mk70s for the ship’s VLS means you’re not wasting money on a capability the ship may never actually use, but can be quickly added to these ships in a short period of time in response to an emerging conflict or one that has escalated too quickly to foresee it. (Sort of like how the Syrian civil war went hot and ended very quickly before the rest of the world could really respond, or the Red Sea crisis.)

Between conflicts theyre an affordable option that makes sense for MIO and show the flag missions allowing the higher end ships to relax the demands on their hulls and engines.

 

[johnpjones1775]

There will be in the coming decades. The LSC fleet is going to shrink some ~30 hulls.


Heavily disagree. You’re losing a ton of sensor coverage, strike capability, and your ability to operate in high-intensity environments. DDG(X) is exactly what the fleet needs.

Sure the fleet needs ddgx, but it also needs cheap ships that are just enough as well.
It’s not a zero sum situation.
Just the USN has a historical habit of neglecting smaller vessels in the fleet until a conflict actually starts and we have to figure out what to do about getting some.

Do you really not understand that there are cheaper radars than SPY available that provide the necessary AAW capability?

Edit
In the coming decades likely no there won’t be a shortfall of VLS, in the upcoming decade there likely will be for a few years, while the investment period recovers from the upcoming divestment period.

 

[_Del_]

We have both a hull and VLS shortage.

The cheapest way to address this is exactly how they are planning to do it. MUSV to provide ISR&T sensor input for JADC2, and the LUSV to augment that capability with devoted sensors for ASW, ASu, or AAW in the subtypes, and able to respond to call for fires.

But enough people have cast pearls for you in this thread; I'll see myself to the door because you're clearly not interested in hearing it.

 

[johnpjones1775]

We have both a hull and VLS shortage.

The cheapest way to address this is exactly how they are planning to do it. MUSV to provide ISR&T sensor input for JADC2, and the LUSV to augment that capability with devoted sensors for ASW, ASu, or AAW in the subtypes, and able to respond to call for fires.

But enough people have cast pearls for you in this thread; I'll see myself to the door because you're clearly not interested in hearing it.

Can you provide a source for any serious sensors being planned for USVs of any size, because I have yet to hear or see anything about that.

Yes many people have poo-pooed the idea, most of which have shown themselves to not know what they’re talking about.

Even with idea of USVs getting serious sensors to potentially assist in escorts, that still doesn’t solve the problem of not enough small cheap ships to do the low intensity peacetime missions.

Sure we could order more LCSes, but unless something major changes in congressional and public opinion soon, that’s just not going to happen.

My idea give us those extra hulls for the low intensity stuff, while providing a fall back with some high intensity capabilities if things get truly hot again.

Not to mention all the EW that will be going on, how do we ensure those USVs don’t simply get jammed and lose connection to operators ashore who will be pushing the buttons to tell them to launch?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Do you really not understand that there are cheaper radars than SPY available that provide the necessary AAW capability?

Yes, those radars exist.

They require custom interfaces with the missile fire controls, custom schools for how they work and how to fix them, and unique spare parts.

They also emit unique signals to tell an MPA snooper (Bear etc) that there's a squishy target over this way, and a big scary SPY6 over that way.

There's a really big reason the USN is installing Aegis/SPY6 on EVERYTHING, and why the Constellations ended up as big as they did.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Yes, those radars exist.

They require custom interfaces with the missile fire controls, custom schools for how they work and how to fix them, and unique spare parts.

They also emit unique signals to tell an MPA snooper (Bear etc) that there's a squishy target over this way, and a big scary SPY6 over that way.

There's a really big reason the USN is installing Aegis/SPY6 on EVERYTHING, and why the Constellations ended up as big as they did.

We literally already have two of those radars in the fleet…

 

[Scott Kenny]

We literally already have two of those radars in the fleet…

And are getting rid of them.

 

[johnpjones1775]

And are getting rid of them.

No we aren’t.
Getting rid of one of them…which guess what! That frees them up to be used on a new type of ship!

 

[H_K]

A small surface combatant, maybe 2000-2500tons

Here's a view of a 2,200 patrol corvette that should fit the bill.

Basically a scaled down Gowind 2500. Alternatively, one could use Damen's Sigma 10513 as a starting point. Dimensions 96m x 12.7m x 3.5m waterline (102m x 14m oa).

- Standard USN flight deck & hangar for 1x MH-60 (or VTUAVs)
- Free deck space forward for up to 2 ADL launchers (2x 4 cells) or 3 missile containers up to 27ft length (3x 2 cells)
- Modular midships payload area for 2x RHIBs in peacetime or additional missile launchers (2 ADL or 3 missile containers)
- Modular stern bay for 3x 20ft containers (e.g. torpedo launchers)
- 2x stern ramps for 2x RHIBs or 2x additional 20ft containers (e.g. towed sonar)

Total wartime payload of 12-16 strike length cells.
Able to simultaneously perform ASW ops with 1x helo + 1x containerized sonar and 2x containerized torp launchers.
Self-defense provided by RAM launcher and 57mm gun.

Biggest question IMHO would be whether the heavy missile load (approx. 60 - 80 tons for the launchers with missiles) would negatively impact stability.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Here's a view of a 2,200 patrol corvette that should fit the bill.

Basically a scaled down Gowind 2500. Alternatively, one could use Damen's Sigma 10513 as a starting point. Dimensions 96m x 12.7m x 3.5m waterline (102m x 14m oa).

- Standard USN flight deck & hangar for 1x MH-60 (or VTUAVs)
- Free deck space forward for up to 2 ADL launchers (2x 4 cells) or 3 missile containers up to 27ft length (3x 2 cells)
- Modular midships payload area for 2x RHIBs in peacetime or additional missile launchers (2 ADL or 3 missile containers)
- Modular stern bay for 3x 20ft containers (e.g. torpedo launchers)
- 2x stern ramps for 2x RHIBs or 2x additional 20ft containers (e.g. towed sonar)

Total wartime payload of 12-16 strike length cells.
Able to simultaneously perform ASW ops with 1x helo + 1x containerized sonar and 2x containerized torp launchers.
Self-defense provided by RAM launcher and 57mm gun.

Biggest question IMHO would be whether the heavy missile load (approx. 60 - 80 tons for the launchers with missiles) would negatively impact stability.

View attachment 757089

Stability might give ADLs an advantage, since the mk70 requires them to raise up in order to fire putting much more weight well above the center of gravity.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Steel is cheap so why limit the size? I suspect the minimum viable combatant size for a small corvette is pushing 5,000 tons now.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Steel is cheap so why limit the size? I suspect the minimum viable combatant size for a small corvette is pushing 5,000 tons now.

Bigger ship requires more bodies for paint and preservation, means more crew, big ships with big crews, are expensive.
Why spend any extra money just to make a ship unnecessarily large?

The point is a ship as cheap as possible and still be functional and useful. Bigger ship not only means more BMs for the outside paint and preservation, but likely more snipes for the same purpose in their engineering spaces.
Just 4 extra E-1s is what? An extra $120k in crewing cost to these ships? Sure that’s not even Pennies to the DoD, a single penny every day does add up.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Bigger ship requires more bodies for paint and preservation, means more crew, big ships with big crews, are expensive.

When in port, Sailors do not have to do that. Shipyard folks did all the nonskid on subs, for example.

 

[johnpjones1775]

When in port, Sailors do not have to do that. Shipyard folks did all the nonskid on subs, for example.

Non-skid is different from the daily paint and preservation work that happens in port and out to sea.
Why would we spend even more money to pay yard apes to such basic maintenance? That’s part of why LCS operating costs have been so high…paying contractors to do most of the maintenance

 

[johnpjones1775]

This is a massive problem among the American perspective in regards to our navy.
We as a whole seem to believe we’re somehow above having small cheap ships that aren’t 100% top of the line. It’s a very similar attitude Americans have towards pickups, just make it bigger…for absolutely no reason at all, even if the size ends up being a detriment overall.

Imagine if we treated the army or USMC like that. Both would be a tiny fraction of their current size.

But every naval war since WWI ended the USN has had to rush to get the necessary number of small craft and small vessels pumped out and pushed into service.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Bigger ship requires more bodies for paint and preservation, means more crew, big ships with big crews, are expensive.
Why spend any extra money just to make a ship unnecessarily large?

The point is a ship as cheap as possible and still be functional and useful. Bigger ship not only means more BMs for the outside paint and preservation, but likely more snipes for the same purpose in their engineering spaces.
Just 4 extra E-1s is what? An extra $120k in crewing cost to these ships? Sure that’s not even Pennies to the DoD, a single penny every day does add up.

A large ship makes maintenance take longer, and it also makes construction hard, both of which is a much bigger cost factor than...paint.

Penny pinching is how DOD can't afford its current ship numbers, much less more ships.

This is a massive problem among the American perspective in regards to our navy.
We as a whole seem to believe we’re somehow above having small cheap ships that aren’t 100% top of the line.

You are literally demonstrating the problematic mentality: stuffing an American ship full of complex battle systems to a positively Italian level because "it's empty". No, that's the point. It's supposed to be empty. It's why the Spruances were cheap. Cheap ships are:

1) Large.
2) Underarmed.

That's it.

Make a Burke. Strip out everything except the towed array, bow sonar, the deck gun, the CIWS mounts, the SVTTs, and a single helicopter.

That's a very cheap ship.