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.

The RANs Adelaide class are basically upgraded OHP's:

From Wiki (out of convenience)

 

Upgrades

There have been two major upgrades distinguishing the Adelaide class from the American Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.

Lengthening

The first three units, as initially constructed, had a length identical at both the main deck and the keel, similar to that of the early Oliver Hazard Perry class ships. From Darwin onwards, the ship's overall length was increased by angling the transom (the section between the fantail and the keel) - this enlarged the flight deck, allowing the larger Seahawk helicopter to be accommodated. This was retrofitted into Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney at their periodic refits.

FFG Upgrade

As part of a major programme of improvements, a AU$1 billion upgrade project for the Adelaide class is in progress, which will see enhancements to both weapons and equipment. The costs of the project will be partly offset by the decommissioning of the two oldest units, with Canberra paying off in 2005, Adelaide is due to be paid off early in 2008. The first upgraded vessel, Sydney, returned to the fleet in 2005. Some of the new features include the ability to fire the SM-2 missile, the addition of an 8 cell Mk 41 VLS for Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile^[2] and enhanced air search radar and long range sonar. When these upgrades are complete, the Adelaide class frigates will be the only FFG-7 class ships in the world capable of employing ESSM and SM-2. Each unit to be upgraded will do so at Garden Island in Sydney, with the modifications taking between 18 months and two years. The ships will be replaced starting in 2013 by three new air defence destroyers equipped with the Aegis combat system.

mount an eight cell VLS in place of the three inch gun on the deck house and mount a Evolved sea sparrow or RAM launcher in place of where the CIWS used to be.

Something tells me if you cannot mount the VLS up there then you cannot mount a 5 inch gun up there either. 

Or dust off the Knox, give it diesels, and repackage it to 21st century standards?

Herald

I like the Knox's, it's a damn shame we got t-boned by the Newports.  The Govt would have gone for them as interim replacements for the Perth/Brisbane/Hobart if we hadn't got screwed on the other deal.

As it is, there is a huge reluctance to buy second hand US kit anymore...

ignore my prev brain phart.  I was discussing at cross purposes.  I like the Knox, but my comment was geared towards the failure to consider the Kidds due to the stuff ups with the Newports.  Unfort the Newports left Oz govt with a reluctance to buy any more second hand vessels from USN so that meant that getting the Kidds or the Block 1 Ticos was never going to get up.

 

 

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.

I remember a few years back, not long after I "enlisted" on here,
where we were discussing the, ahem, "merits" of the LCS over other designs.

(and for a time, even I was fooled by the modularity concept!)

 

IIRC, the most-agreed-upon saving grace of the LCS family was supposed to be its $230-250M price tag.

Gee, guess that didn't happen.

Methinks we'd have been better in choosing an Americanized AEGIS-equipped F100 (comfortably carried both guns and missiles for every occasion).

But then again, seeing as how Americanization has already snuffed up numerous other ported-over foreign designs (Lakota helicopter comes to mind),

I'd be afraid that a US shipbuilder would now be trying to pawn off cost-overrun F100s at $700-800M a pop.

 

The latest Popular Science (or was it Popular Mechanics?) has a rather optimistic article about the USN's future surface combatants, although it seems to me they've written it with a bit too much schoolboy enthusiasm, not taking enough consideration into account about just how far out of original cost proportion these, and other defense-related programs, have grown as of late, thus risking more budgetary axes against said projects.

 

I can't recall if it was someone on here, or some other military forums,

but I recently remember reading someone's post who pondered if we'd have a cheaper LCS if we didn't request the speedboat requirement for it.

Could we actually trust US shipbuilders to create a cost-effective (read: cheaper than LCS currently has become) FFG-7 modernized platform, that in the end would still end up cheaper (sticker price and operational costs) than it would've cost to initially procure F100s?

Something tells me if you cannot mount the VLS up there then you cannot mount a 5 inch gun up there either.  For this mission I really think the gun may be more important than missiles so I guess I would look into mounting a 5 inch gun in the bow where the Mk13 used to be, upgrading the Otto Malera on the deck house to something better and going with a RAM launcher or ESSP in place of Phalanx. I would  also look into trying to fit a harpoon box launcher between the gun mount and the bridge.

Here's where I go way off on a tangent and suggest utilizing navalized land-based artillery systems.

Many of us have already read/discussed the demonstrations of the MONARC system (PzH2000 155mm/L52 turret) on a German frigate,

and even the attempt at trialling the AS90's 155mm/L39 retrofitted into a 4.5" naval gun turret.

 

What about a navalized Denel LEO 105?

(see page 5 of the Jane's pdf here: link

Or dust off the Knox, give it diesels, and repackage it to 21st century standards?

Herald

Nice.
I always liked what FRAM did to a lot of antiquated ships.

Too bad our current crop of naval designers seems to lack the ingenuity that shipwrights and engineers seemed to have back then.

...or is it just a general lack of interest due to lack of funds?

(What? No more dreamers?)

 

The biggest mistake I think we made with LCS was the 40-50knot "sprint" capability:

3000ton hulls going that fast, how far? How much fiuel does that eat up again, for what range?

Knox frigates are too old and reaching the end of the useful life fast. Forget about them.

 

OHP boats are just a little better. In both cases, those designs don't have stealth hull, and were built cheap. Maybe too cheap. OHP has only one shaft, and Knox still use steam turbine. Some of OHP users may upgrade their SM-1 and Mk.13 GMLS to shoot SM-2MR, but otherwise it makes no sense to install a Mk.48. What's the point? Knox was built as ocean convoy escort, and OHP was designed to be fleet radar picket. Both were expected to fill the role of WW2 destroyers. The threat changes, so the need for these ships also disapears. The USN are using the remaining OHP until their useful lifetime is out.

 

The problem with frigates is that, what's the point putting 50km anti-aircraft missiles, when modern fighters can launch missiles 150km away? It makes sense in 1970s when most anti-ship missiles have effective range of about 40km, so SM-1 type missile was every effective against surface and airborne targets before they can launch missiles.

 

For the USN, LCS is way to go, because no enemy can manage battle space above water level against USN fleet, so they will employ asymmetric means to do sea-denial. Most probably threats in this scenario is small, but stealthy surface crafts, shore-based anti-ship missiles, mine warfare and submarines. Getting a convoy escort or fleet radar picket into this enviroment doesn't do much good. In WW2, even smaller ships were built to do these jobs: minesweepers, DE, APD and LCS-L (landing craft support - large).

 

Therefore, the best way to use OHP in USN inventory is the way they are used now. Sell old ships, take off useless equipment off the ship and use them until the hull becomes obsolete.

 

There is no urgent need for convoy escort or fleet radar picket, but if there is, they must be able to be built fast.

Something tells me if you cannot mount the VLS up there then you cannot mount a 5 inch gun up there either.  For this mission I really think the gun may be more important than missiles so I guess I would look into mounting a 5 inch gun in the bow where the Mk13 used to be, upgrading the Otto Malera on the deck house to something better and going with a RAM launcher or ESSP in place of Phalanx. I would  also look into trying to fit a harpoon box launcher between the gun mount and the bridge.

The reason you don't see an upgraded FFG-7 is the manpower involved. If you watch the new shipbuilding programs you'll notice that crew size is greatly reduced. The USN is trying to reduce personnel costs.