Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why not an updated FFG-7 design in place of LCS?
thumper    2/13/2008 12:19:02 AM
I have been reading this forum for a long time without posting. The current discussion about VLS on carriers has been quite interesting. The thing that really caught my eye is the part about the USN being short on smaller ships and how the LCS is a failure. My question is why not use an updated version of the FFG-7 design. It seems to me it would fit the bill. Why not use the hull and machinery as is and update the armament and electronics.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
Herald12345       2/13/2008 11:28:01 PM

Fire Scouts look to have potential as a recon bird but I am not sure it would be suitable for ASW or carrying Penguin or it's successor. I think (my layman's opinion) the helos, the gun and the sonar are the three mosy important weapons/sensors this platform will carry. Lets face it for AAW all it needs is a credible point AAW defense. That will be enough for operations against Joe Second Rate Despot. While it may not always carry two (or even one) Seahawk I think the ability to deploy two is essential.

As for the diesels, the site you sent me to was for the American distributer for MAN. The biggest engine they had there was about 1700hp. I get your point though. MAN can make them real big. correct me if I am wrong but I think the Lycomings are used on the Abrams. I do think the FFG-7s use the tried and true LM-2500 from GE. Perhaps upgraded LM-2500s are in order, or CODAG because other than fuel consumption I still don't see the advantage of a diesel in this application but I am open to being enlightened. LM-2500s are everywhere. Why can't they be supported as easily as a MAN diesel?

I bet there are some really nice low mileage Mk 45s from the Spruances laying around somewhere.  Maybe mount them in place of the Mk-13.

Lastly, your comment about the Perry's design. In what way is it any worse a design than Knox. They both have single screws and rudders. They both had little room for growth. Those where the drawbacks I read/heard about.

The workup I did for a modernized Knox should have been a clue.

The weapon arcs for the Perry are horriible. The amidships gun is fouled forward and  aft. The CWIS is a rear 240 degree arc restricted mount[Stark Lesson]. The missile mount is shallow magazined.and the design is TOPHEAVY.

LM2500 is GE. I had a brain fart. The GE engine is 1970s design technology, and is near  the end of its development cycle.

The Knox if you look at the weapon layout is the layout followed by every SUCCESSFUL AAW defense ship down to the present including the Ticos, the Arleighs and the  Darings. It is the PROTOTYPE: it has excellent weapon's arcs and radar coverage, few dead zones for radar coverage, and it is adaptable.

Herald. .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/13/2008 11:34:02 PM



4. Once again. This new hull has to be buildable in numbers and mission capable enough to serve the historic role of a frigate. It is not just a brown water warship. It has to be able to fight across the entire threat environment.as a general purpose warship. That means bigger than some corvettes [steel is cheap]; it means on station time and it means enough war fighting potential that it can show up, as a show the flag, and remind the local  bandits who actually runs the oceans around there.

Herald


French tried to built in this idea, and this is the result:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/FS_La_Fayette_2.jpg" border="0" height="406" width="626">

 

Not suggesting that exact ship is the solution, but the overall size will be the same.



There are many reasons why I call them the Laugh-it-ups.

One hit wonders, burp rockets, shake, rattle, and roll  barges,  DCNS  bribery  barges, floating targets, etc.

Size  is the lower  boundary limit. That I agree.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

thumper       2/14/2008 12:59:45 AM
As I recall the original Knox has either Phalanx or Sea Sparrow on the fantail that interfered with flight OPs. I would also imagine that the firing arc would be restricted as well. I agree about the location of the 3 inch mount, just terrible. I am not sure about the missile mount. It did carry 40 rounds. Maybe not VLS but still 40 rounds in a frigate is pretty good. I did not know about the top heavy part either, then again, I dabble. Anyway like your Knox (which I do really like, it's just those engines and the need for a second helo) I would rearrange things topside and maybe lengthen the hull a bit on the Perry. As you said, steel is cheap. I am sure you could then fit two helos, a Fire Scout or other recon asset, a Mk54, ASW tubes, a decent AAW point defense, a towed array, an active sonar, and an AEGIS.

As for the LM-2500 being70's technology so what. The diesel is 1870's technology. Use LM-6000s and a diesel instead.

I think the French frigates are too small and a bit too slow.

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       2/14/2008 8:40:04 AM


There are many reasons why I call them the Laugh-it-ups.

One hit wonders, burp rockets, shake, rattle, and roll  barges,  DCNS  bribery  barges, floating targets, etc.

Size  is the lower  boundary limit. That I agree.

Herald
LaFayette design does have something. It uses CODAD power source and can go 7000nm at 15kt. The hull is indeed somewhat stealthy. DCN's fast prototyping capability is amazing. They can modify existing design to fit different requirement. Look at what Singaporeans have from them:
http://www.caffeine.com.sg/IMDEX/website/gallery/visiting_warship_07/warship_08.jpg" width=413 border=0>
Although I do agree that Aster 15 is something not quite useful, and the package doen't allow Mk.41 to be installed. Therefore, the best solution to AA self-defense is probably one RAM launcher and Mk.48 in the front. RSN mostly operates in calm South China Sea, so they don't need the design French navy and ROCN required on their ships.

And last, this is one of ROCN's knox (933 Feng Yang)
http://static.flickr.com/97/280524673_fd56d5a1e4.jpg" width=500 border=0>
Note the box-shaped things on the hanger? They are SM-1 launchers. It was taken from ex-Gearing destroyers, now artificial ridges, and reinstalled on Feng Yang.
 
There is a limiting factor on these ships. You can't install four SPY-1D radars on these ships and still have enough Mk.41 silos. F310 class has provision of 16 tubes, and uses somewhat downgraded SPY-1F radar and probably also downgraded Aegis Combat System. It is still over 5000 tonne full. The next bigger one is Bundesmarine F124 Sachsen, but it uses APAR and SMART-L and do not have four SPY-1D, and is 600 tonne heavier than the former. The next one is F100 (~7000 tonne 48 tubes), followed by Japanese Atago/Kongo (96 tubes),  Arleigh Burke and Korean KDX-III (10000 tonne 80 tubes + 48 Korean tubes).
 
Unless there are new combat system, radar and missile that can provide same level of combat effectiveness and yet still can be fit onto a 4000t frigate, there will always be choice between cheap-but-lame and awesome-but-too-costly. Both design thinkings are "multi-purpose," depending on how you define it. LaFayette is designed to support Legionaire operations in foreign lands, not sea control. A lot of these internal space are used as storage, cabin or even hospital depending on mission. ROCN uses them as ASW and anti-shipping frigates on budget. These ships do the jobs well, but ROCN knows they screwed up in AAW, but it is not DCN to be blamed. They knew they screwed up building OHP, leasing/purchasing Knox and Kang Ding, so they look for only Aegis-equiped ships now.
 
I don't know why 313 is such an important number for ships to the USN. The current situation is that there is not enough ships to do all the policing work on sea lanes across the globe. So, the best way might be asking Koreans to build Lockheed LCS for the USN, and send those ships to chase bandits without MIW/ASW mission modules, if they can get design finalized. Save money and bulid more SSN.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       2/14/2008 10:38:12 AM



 

There is a limiting factor on these ships. You can't install four SPY-1D radars on these ships and still have enough Mk.41 silos. F310 class has provision of 16 tubes, and uses somewhat downgraded SPY-1F radar and probably also downgraded Aegis Combat System. It is still over 5000 tonne full. The next bigger one is Bundesmarine F124 Sachsen, but it uses APAR and SMART-L and do not have four SPY-1D, and is 600 tonne heavier than the former. The next one is F100 (~7000 tonne 48 tubes), followed by Japanese Atago/Kongo (96 tubes),  Arleigh Burke and Korean KDX-III (10000 tonne 80 tubes + 48 Korean tubes).

 

Unless there are new combat system, radar and missile that can provide same level of combat effectiveness and yet still can be fit onto a 4000t frigate, there will always be choice between cheap-but-lame and awesome-but-too-costly. Both design thinkings are "multi-purpose," depending on how you define it. LaFayette is designed to support Legionaire operations in foreign lands, not sea control. A lot of these internal space are used as storage, cabin or even hospital depending on mission. ROCN uses them as ASW and anti-shipping frigates on budget. These ships do the jobs well, but ROCN knows they screwed up in AAW, but it is not DCN to be blamed. They knew they screwed up building OHP, leasing/purchasing Knox and Kang Ding, so they look for only Aegis-equiped ships now.

 
Just a thought...
Anyone here think that a surface (marinized) version of the F-22's APG-77 or the F-35's APG-81 AESAs could be developed as, in effect, a small-size AEGIS system?
Both sets seem capable enough versus aerial targets, and the F-35's is supposed to be unrivalled in the air-to-ground mode, so could we develop either set into a surface variant, perhaps even complete with the DEW/EW capabilities advertised with each radar?
 
...but then again, seeing the dismal failure that was the M247 Sgt York DIVADS, which utilized a failed attempt at making the F-16's radar into a ground-based system that had uncorrectable (for whatever reasons) side lobe issues,...
If they could be designed to operate sufficiently in marine environments, either AESA would then be able to offer vessels even down near 1000 tons displacement a very capable, adequately ranged, multi-mode (air and surface search/track simultaneously) 360º coverage system that wouldn't break the bank or the ship's back due to extra weight that's associated with the much larger and power hungry SPY-1 arrays and all their associated support gear (power conduits, CIC interfaces, etc).
We just configure multiple arrays covering (overlapping) 90-120º arcs around the ship, no different than how SPY-1 arrays are currently configured.
I want to believe that there shouldn't be any unresolvable difficulties integrating them with ESSM, Standard, and Harpoon/SLAM,
perhaps even an ability to cue NetFires PAMs...?
 
Perhaps even borrowing a bit from THAAD's AN/TPY-2 Ground Based Radar (another phased array system) would allow even these smaller vessels some measure of ABM capability...?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    nOI DISRESPECT INTENDED.   2/14/2008 10:57:33 AM
1.But the French know as much about building ships and building aircraft as I do aboutr cooking a French souflette.
They are PEDESTRIAN. They are not world technology leaders. They are followers.
2. US shipbuilding may be a little old fashioned in technique [the guys at Grumman or Ingalls shipbuilding would not believe I just said that] but I point out that when US warships take cruise missile hits they don't explode, burn, and sink. That is as much a function of the crews as the design of the ships. They sort of go together. The Laugh-it-ups, not built to a damage control philosophy, are death traps.
3. As much as the Europeans like to extol the virtues of their designs I find this to be objectively true about the Laugh-it-up.
a. Compartmentalization and framing [passive defense] by US standards is poor..
b. Combat information systems layout and air threat management interfacing [French] is poor.
c. Low observability claims are just that, claims and are a farce.
d. European radars fitted to the class are fair to good.
e. European naval guns [French] are good to excellent.
f. Active air defense is awful.
g. EW countermeasures packages depending on variant are fair to poor.

The DCNS CLOWNS who designed the Lafayettes have not seen their ships get hammered in an actual naval campaign. They don't  have a clue as to how to design to REAL operational requirements. Why should they? Do they have Okinawa, the Falklands, a Cole or a Stark to teach them exactly what NOT to do?

I could care less if DCNS could rapid prototype flying ice cream cones. If it is going to break in two and go down like a rock after one dud Exocet hit taking everybody aboard straight to the sharks or catch fire and have to be abandoned after a minor event like a few random shell hits or one ruptured fuel line that ignites, then I don't want that piece of junk in my inventory.

Looking pretty is not the same as being effective.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/HMS_Andromeda_DN-SC-90-11423.jpg">

Ugly as sin, but it was  EFFECTIVE , and probably a better design than the contemporary Knox.  I particularly liked the broad beamed Leanders. The only thing I remember negative about them, is that many of them were involved in collisions. [tough ships] No, I do not mean the Iceland/UK bump and scrape Cod Wars, I mean standard collisions as in running into other ships..

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       2/14/2008 12:17:14 PM


Just a thought...
Anyone here think that a surface (marinized) version of the F-22's APG-77 or the F-35's APG-81 AESAs could be developed as, in effect, a small-size AEGIS system?

Both sets seem capable enough versus aerial targets, and the F-35's is supposed to be unrivalled in the air-to-ground mode, so could we develop either set into a surface variant, perhaps even complete with the DEW/EW capabilities advertised with each radar?

 
The problem with airborne radars on ship is that they all work in X-band (or I/J band in NATO designation). When operated at 28000 ft, they can have maximum range of 200km in detecting B-52 size stuff (in RCS, of course). However, when operated at sea level, the range drops dramatically. Radar range attenuation is a function of wavelength, water vapor and air density. Nobody's gonna tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but things work like just that. X-band also refract less than S-band or L-band. Greater refraction gives you some edge of some OTH capability. S-band can probably gives you 5-10km. That's important when enganging sea-skimming targets.

Airborne radars have been modified for ground use, but naval system requirements are different. Though these radars may still be quite useful on corvettes.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       2/14/2008 3:52:15 PM
At this point, a US X-band warship radar of this type will likely be a derivative of SPY-3, not an aircraft radar.



 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/14/2008 4:11:20 PM
 
The USN's X-Band system is a tad longer than 200nm in reach....
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    I'm not doubting you, but...   2/14/2008 4:19:17 PM





Just a thought...
Anyone here think that a surface (marinized) version of the F-22's APG-77 or the F-35's APG-81 AESAs could be developed as, in effect, a small-size AEGIS system?



Both sets seem capable enough versus aerial targets, and the F-35's is supposed to be unrivalled in the air-to-ground mode, so could we develop either set into a surface variant, perhaps even complete with the DEW/EW capabilities advertised with each radar?


 


The problem with airborne radars on ship is that they all work in X-band (or I/J band in NATO designation). When operated at 28000 ft, they can have maximum range of 200km in detecting B-52 size stuff (in RCS, of course). However, when operated at sea level, the range drops dramatically. Radar range attenuation is a function of wavelength, water vapor and air density. Nobody's gonna tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but things work like just that. X-band also refract less than S-band or L-band. Greater refraction gives you some edge of some OTH capability. S-band can probably gives you 5-10km. That's important when enganging sea-skimming targets.

Airborne radars have been modified for ground use, but naval system requirements are different. Though these radars may still be quite useful on corvettes.


...does this then suggest that,
if an F-35 attack decides to come in fairly low across the surface (100-200 ft ASL or so),
doesn't that then mean that its radar performance (target acquisition at distance) is severely diminshed in the surface attack role as compared to operating from 20K?
 
I do understand that getting lower to sea level means reducing your radar range due to the horizon in relation to your position (Earth curvature and all that),
but seeing as both the USMC and USN are anticipated to operate F-35s fron USN carriers (and LPH/LPDs?),
have they fully taken into consideration that the F-35s,
by your above suggestion pertaining to the performances of various radar bands in maritime environments,
doesn't that suggest the F-35s will be considerably hampered in their ability in lower altitude missions?
 
Is the Super Hornet also susceptible to this capability reduction?
 
I'm just trying to figure out some way of packing phased array systems into ships smaller than 5000+ ton vessels.
As we task them with missions into the littorals and closer to an adversary's coastal territory,
they'll need more than radar, IR, and acoustic signature reduction to survive: if they get caught in the daylight hours, they'll need the ability either to run behind the cover of heavier-equipped vessel farther out to sea,
or they'll need the teeth to stand their ground and fight.
So sending in an LCS with a minimal air defense ability, even a handful of them hopefully complementing each other's capability shortcomings,
well,
to me it just seems idiotic thinking.
If you can't guarantee you can defend a vessel from the most likely threats they'll attract in a given area (and an LCS will be labeled a more important threat/target than something more akin to a Cyclone-like FAC/OPV),
then isn't it pointless to even risk sending them in there?
Do I risk a surface-attack configured LCS, or a mine warfare one, in an area where there is a large probability of coastal artillery and SSMs, or even aerial threats, sending them in with minimal anti-air/anti-missile capability, hoping that their stealth will keep more than enough to them alive and harm free, or relying on Aegis-equipped Burkes farther out to sea providing adequate enough airspace monitoring and protection?
 
 
Just trying to understand USN rationale here.
 
If no ESSM launch systems, I'd at least minimally like to see RAM mounts (plural, more than one) as part of an LCS's basic armament.
Do we really think that the 57 and guys manning 50-cals along the rails will be all the air defense the ship needs?
 
Seeing as just how much more technologically advanced the F-22's
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics