Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

[TomS]

Strike-length, judging by the canister he pulled out of the model. I think the USN is not interested in other cell lengths because that creates problems in the logistics chain. Different ships need different types of canisters for the same missiles, which is undesirable.

Come to think of it, has anyone bought Tactical or Self-Defense Mk 41 at all? Or are they all Strike-Length?

 

[DrRansom]

I wonder about the microwave system, specifically how hard will it be for other countries to radiation harden their missile electronics? What I suspect is that the microwave system will be very effective against current and older systems, but a little bit of engineering and a slightly higher cost unit will make it ineffective against next generation weapons.

A similar thought goes for low-powered lasers, just how hard is it to achieve some minimal level of protection against directed energy? Nobody has done that yet, but the basic armor may be pretty easy.

As for the comment about cruisers, all I can say is that I really dislike the phrase "people ask me about X, well we're not calling the replacement X." That style of thinking has produced an unmitigated string of development disasters, think the LCS as a frigate replacement or the Army's unending string of R&D mistakes over the past two decades. It is a fake intellectualism, a cheap way of sounding smart without sign of serious thought into the program.

 

[sferrin]

I wonder about the microwave system, specifically how hard will it be for other countries to radiation harden their missile electronics? What I suspect is that the microwave system will be very effective against current and older systems, but a little bit of engineering and a slightly higher cost unit will make it ineffective against next generation weapons.

A similar thought goes for low-powered lasers, just how hard is it to achieve some minimal level of protection against directed energy? Nobody has done that yet, but the basic armor may be pretty easy.

As for the comment about cruisers, all I can say is that I really dislike the phrase "people ask me about X, well we're not calling the replacement X." That style of thinking has produced an unmitigated string of development disasters, think the LCS as a frigate replacement or the Army's unending string of R&D mistakes over the past two decades. It is a fake intellectualism, a cheap way of sounding smart without sign of serious thought into the program.

Have to agree. What the hell is wrong with calling it a cruiser? It's what they need. Denying it isn't going to help anybody.

 

[DrRansom]

Have to agree. What the hell is wrong with calling it a cruiser? It's what they need. Denying it isn't going to help anybody.

It is that phrasing which makes me fear that PCA is going to fail spectacularly. The USAF is calling the PCA something different from a fighter, not a fighter, but something else, something better (tm).

I get AoA and changing concepts to reflect technological and theater changes. But this type of phrasing reflects intellectual confusion and I have yet to see an example of this type of language leading to anything good.

Really, it is the military following the worst of the 'disruption' marketing crap.

 

[sferrin]

Have to agree. What the hell is wrong with calling it a cruiser? It's what they need. Denying it isn't going to help anybody.

It is that phrasing which makes me fear that PCA is going to fail spectacularly. The USAF is calling the PCA something different from a fighter, not a fighter, but something else, something better (tm).

I get AoA and changing concepts to reflect technological and theater changes. But this type of phrasing reflects intellectual confusion and I have yet to see an example of this type of language leading to anything good.

Really, it is the military following the worst of the 'disruption' marketing crap.

To me when I hear that kind of language I see someone doing the hand-wavey thing with really no idea where they're going or how they're going to get there.

 

[DrRansom]

To me when I hear that kind of language I see someone doing the hand-wavey thing with really no idea where they're going or how they're going to get there.

I'm also suspicious when people call the F-22 or F-35 a F/A/EA/RF - XX. That also screams sloppy thinking. A modern fighter plane can do a ton of stuff, but with a single pilot, limited fuel, and limited training hours, you can only do one thing per flight and a few things per squadron. Instead of being inspiring, it sounds like exactly as you said, they don't know what they want to do, just that they want to do 'something amazing with new technology.'

 

[marauder2048]

On the PCA taxonomy, I think one of the study authors said that "fighter" often connotes a 9G, 50 degree AoA aircraft.

On cruiser taxonomy, I wonder if they are thinking about relaxing things like top speed and total VLS cell count in exchange
for bigger radars, longer endurance and at-sea VLS reloadability e.g. the LPD-based future surface combatant.

 

[TomS]

As for the comment about cruisers, all I can say is that I really dislike the phrase "people ask me about X, well we're not calling the replacement X." That style of thinking has produced an unmitigated string of development disasters, think the LCS as a frigate replacement or the Army's unending string of R&D mistakes over the past two decades. It is a fake intellectualism, a cheap way of sounding smart without sign of serious thought into the program.

Have to agree. What the hell is wrong with calling it a cruiser? It's what they need. Denying it isn't going to help anybody.

It gets awkward to build a new "cruiser" on a DDG-51 hull. You know that's going to be one of the proposals.

It could also be weird if they settle on an LPD-17 derivative. Calling that a "cruiser" might perturb some folks in Congress.

 

[DrRansom]

On the PCA taxonomy, I think one of the study authors said that "fighter" often connotes a 9G, 50 degree AoA aircraft.

On cruiser taxonomy, I wonder if they are thinking about relaxing things like top speed and total VLS cell count in exchange
for bigger radars, longer endurance and at-sea VLS reloadability e.g. the LPD-based future surface combatant.

That's fine in theory, but in practice this type of language usually accompanies really mushy thinking about the vehicle being purchased and it's role.

It'd be so much cleaner to say:
PCA - we're buying a new type of fighter, better suited to modern environments, but doing the air superiority mission all the same
Cruiser - we need a cruiser to escort the aircraft carriers, so we need ships which can provide area air defense and control and we will see what that looks like

Instead, they get into a confusing and juvenile article about semantics.

 

[sferrin]

As for the comment about cruisers, all I can say is that I really dislike the phrase "people ask me about X, well we're not calling the replacement X." That style of thinking has produced an unmitigated string of development disasters, think the LCS as a frigate replacement or the Army's unending string of R&D mistakes over the past two decades. It is a fake intellectualism, a cheap way of sounding smart without sign of serious thought into the program.

Have to agree. What the hell is wrong with calling it a cruiser? It's what they need. Denying it isn't going to help anybody.

It gets awkward to build a new "cruiser" on a DDG-51 hull. You know that's going to be one of the proposals.

It could also be weird if they settle on an LPD-17 derivative. Calling that a "cruiser" might perturb some folks in Congress.

They really need to swallow their pride and not end the Zumwalt line. It's already setup to do the things the Tico replacement will need to handle, and if they got the unit number up the cost would go down. They're going to try to cheap their way out of things and cost twice as much in the end (and that's if we're lucky).

 

[marauder2048]

They really need to swallow their pride and not end the Zumwalt line. It's already setup to do the things the Tico replacement will need to handle, and if they got the unit number up the cost would go down.

Totally agree especially with AMDR-X (FXR) 7 years out.
AFAIK, they did leave SWAP-C on Zumwalt to accommodate a version of SPY-6.

 

[marauder2048]

Remember the...

It's GFE on FFG(X)

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Still think we should have stuck with the 76mm and gotten updated guns and munitions in that caliber. No idea why we switched over to 57mm for the LCS and whatever else it's on.

 

[Moose]

Then went for higher RoF and more ammo over the bigger caliber.

 

[sferrin]

Then went for higher RoF and more ammo over the bigger caliber.

A Super Rapid with Vulcano would be tough to beat with a 57mm gun. (Well, except for weight obviously.)

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/vulcano-76

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/76-62-super-rapid

 

[jsport]

Remember the...

It's GFE on FFG(X)

On different thread RDEC determined 60mm was the best CRAMA round. The MML missile version in the background pic is great but a MPF or next IFV w/ a 57mm gun would be better for Navy and Army and eventually AF gunships.

 

[TomS]

Remember the...

It's GFE on FFG(X)

I can't find anything on how ALAMO actually works -- either steering or seeker. Any hints?

 

[Moose]

Then went for higher RoF and more ammo over the bigger caliber.

A Super Rapid with Vulcano would be tough to beat with a 57mm gun. (Well, except for weight obviously.)

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/vulcano-76

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/76-62-super-rapid

Not defending the decision just explaining it. And Vulcano was not an option when the decision was made.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/01/12/unmanned-rolls-royce-ship-concept-could-launch-drone-choppers.html

 

[bobbymike]

Navy in 2016 considered 'frictionless' requirement for a 500-ship fleet

In 2016, the Navy considered a need for hundreds more warships than the 355 the service eventually decided represents the force-level goal needed to execute the Obama administration's defense strategy, according to a senior official involved in crafting the 2016 Force Structure Assessment.

 

[Triton]

Navy in 2016 considered 'frictionless' requirement for a 500-ship fleet

In 2016, the Navy considered a need for hundreds more warships than the 355 the service eventually decided represents the force-level goal needed to execute the Obama administration's defense strategy, according to a senior official involved in crafting the 2016 Force Structure Assessment.

Siource:
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/navy-2016-considered-frictionless-requirement-500-ship-fleet

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2018/01/16/30631

Surface Navy Working to Bring Firepower Over the Horizon Through Networking, F-35 Integration

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2018/01/17/navy-marines-eyeing-ship-capability-upgrade-plans-focus-weapons-c5i

 

[bring_it_on]

Navy in 2016 considered 'frictionless' requirement for a 500-ship fleet

In 2016, the Navy considered a need for hundreds more warships than the 355 the service eventually decided represents the force-level goal needed to execute the Obama administration's defense strategy, according to a senior official involved in crafting the 2016 Force Structure Assessment.

Siource:
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/navy-2016-considered-frictionless-requirement-500-ship-fleet

Expand the LCS program and aim to buy 3 sub $1 billion FFG(X) vessels a year at peak production would still not get them anywhere close. They could get there if they start counting UUVs

 

[bring_it_on]

https://youtu.be/7PdzdBIWJeA

 

[marauder2048]

Boeing did mention that there was a lot of foreign military interest in the extended range version.

..


WASHINGTON, FEB. 5, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign
Military Sale to Finland of RGM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II+ ER Grade B Surface-Launched Missiles and RGM-84L-4
Harpoon Block II Grade B Surface-Launched Missiles for an estimated cost of $622 million. The Defense Security
Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Finland has requested a possible sale of one hundred (100) RGM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II
Plus (+) Extended Range (ER) Grade B Surface-Launched Missiles, twelve (12) RGM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II
Grade B Surface-Launched Missiles, twelve (12) RGM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II+ ER Grade B Surface-Launched
Upgrade Kits, four (4) RTM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II Grade B Exercise Surface-Launched Missiles, and four (4)
RTM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II+ ER Grade B Exercise Surface-Launched Missiles. Also included are containers,
spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel
training and training equipment, technical assistance, engineering and logistics support services, and other
related elements of logistical support. The estimated total case value is $622 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by
improving the security of a partner nation that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political
stability and economic progress in Europe

Finland intends to use the missiles on its Hamina class ships, Multirole Corvette ships, and Coastal Batteries.
The missiles will provide enhanced capabilities in effective defense of critical sea lanes. The proposed sale of
the missiles and support will increase the Finnish Navy's maritime partnership potential and increase regional
security capability. Finland has not purchased Harpoon Block II+ ER previously, but will have no difficulty
incorporating this capability into its armed forces.

...

 

[TomS]

I hadn't seen the term Grade B applied to Harpoon before. Turns out it refers to the type of launch canister used. There's a lightweight canister (MK 6) intended mainly for FACs, a thick wall canister (MK 12) for the battleships, and the Grade B standard shock-resistant canister (MK 7) for everything else.

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2018/02/16/navy-picks-five-contenders-next-generation-frigate-ffgxprogram

 

[Moose]

Five pretty much expected options. Pretty disappointed there was no comprehensive accounting of the bidders before this award, though, would have been interesting to see if there were more longshot bids like Atlas or if Eastern had submitted an OPC variant.

 

[Triton]

HIII Patrol Frigate

 

[Triton]

Five pretty much expected options. Pretty disappointed there was no comprehensive accounting of the bidders before this award, though, would have been interesting to see if there were more longshot bids like Atlas or if Eastern had submitted an OPC variant.

The Navy would not confirm how many groups bid for the work. At least one U.S.-German team that was not selected for a design contract, Atlas USA and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, told USNI News they had submitted for the competition.

 

[sferrin]

I wonder why SK wasn't in the mix:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu-class_frigate

 

[Moose]

I wonder why SK wasn't in the mix:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu-class_frigate

A Korean co may have made an initial bid, but it hasn't been publicized if so and the Navy isn't discussing bids which were outside the Top 5. My understanding a few months ago was that there were 9 or more total bidders, other than Atlas none were made public.

 

[bring_it_on]

As the Navy develops the final RFP it would be interesting to see what path they take in terms of valuing growth over the lifetime. Really liking the FREMM here personally.

On the Harpoon, it seems a seeker upgrade is in the works...

 

[NeilChapman]

So the expected price is ~$900M BEFORE government furnished equipment, correct? As in all the expensive radar and weapons systems.

Is there any idea what the government furnished equipment will cost for this ship?

 

[marauder2048]

As in all the expensive radar and weapons systems.

Is there any idea what the government furnished equipment will cost for this ship?

Which is the most important question actually. EASR alone is around $100M.

 

[bring_it_on]

So the expected price is ~$900M BEFORE government furnished equipment, correct? As in all the expensive radar and weapons systems.

Is there any idea what the government furnished equipment will cost for this ship?

The target basic construction cost is USD495 million, the USN said, which does not include cost of non-recurring construction plans and other associated costs for a lead ship, government-furnished combat or weapon systems, or change orders.

The programme office, the USN said, “Envisions a [fiscal year] 2020 competition that will consider existing parent designs for a small surface combatant that can be modified to accommodate FFG(X) requirements”. Jane's Defence Weekly Nov.2017

 

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISTRSL80VaU

 

[Colonial-Marine]

As the Navy develops the final RFP it would be interesting to see what path they take in terms of valuing growth over the lifetime. Really liking the FREMM here personally.

On the Harpoon, it seems a seeker upgrade is in the works...

I also like the FREMM but my concern is that both it and the F100-derived design are over 6,000 tons and closer to miniature destroyers than genuine frigates, with all of the cost that involves.

I suppose upgrading the seekers on existing Harpoons is cost efficient but I do wonder if that money would be better spent procuring more LRASM.

I really wish the Navy would pick up development of the LRASM-B again. The fact that they dropped it in the first place seems downright crazy to me.

 

[Triton]

As the Navy develops the final RFP it would be interesting to see what path they take in terms of valuing growth over the lifetime. Really liking the FREMM here personally.

On the Harpoon, it seems a seeker upgrade is in the works...

I also like the FREMM but my concern is that both it and the F100-derived design are over 6,000 tons and closer to miniature destroyers than genuine frigates, with all of the cost that involves.

I suppose upgrading the seekers on existing Harpoons is cost efficient but I do wonder if that money would be better spent procuring more LRASM.

I really wish the Navy would pick up development of the LRASM-B again. The fact that they dropped it in the first place seems downright crazy to me.

There is also a new seeker in the works for a Maritime Strike Tomahawk that will be used to upgrade part of the 4,000 plus Block IV Tomahawk missiles in inventory. While LRASM-A has the advantage of stealth, the Tomahawk has a range of 1,000 miles compared to LRASM-A's 200 mile range.

Source:
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/tomahawk-vs-lrasm-raytheon-gets-119m-for-anti-ship-missile/