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
benellim4       2/13/2008 3:31:14 PM

Why would we ever want an Aegis frigate?  

Simply put. Cost savings. The USN is trying desperately to reduce personnel costs. Personnel costs makes up something like 2/3rds of our budget. Keeping a common combat system allows you to gain savings in training. Not to mention with limited use systems you have a problem of managing a community of people. We're already seeing this with some of the older combat systems. I won't get into the details, but it is a problem. Commonality solves this to a large degree.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       2/13/2008 3:45:46 PM
I have nothing against highly automated ships, but shoehorning Aegis into a frigate is unnecessarily expensive.  A combat system more suitable to a frigate would be cheaper, and if you're talking about replacing a 30+ fleet of ships, there is no problem establishing a community.  Something like the Saab 9LV system that was installed as part of the Halifax class upgrade for example, which works with all of the types of systems I described earlier.

Other countries put Aegis in frigates because they don't have the luxury of building a 60-ship fleet of 7500 ton destroyers, and frigates are basically the biggest combatants they have.  We don't have to do that, but on the other hand that doesn't mean we should go spending unnecessary money gold-plating what are fundamentally oceangoing patrol vessels.

As for the H-6 problem, this isn't really what these ships are for.  A frigate with the systems I described would have no problem protecting itself against an attack like that.  ESSM makes sense because it is dense and you get a whole lot of firepower against smaller combatants in a very small space.  Standard on a frigate only makes sense if you need it to do area air defense for convoys or battlegroups, and that isn't what the USN needs frigates for.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/13/2008 4:17:06 PM

I have nothing against highly automated ships, but shoehorning Aegis into a frigate is unnecessarily expensive.  A combat system more suitable to a frigate would be cheaper, and if you're talking about replacing a 30+ fleet of ships, there is no problem establishing a community. 
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. There is a problem. There are problems supporting legacy systems with 30 hulls or less. 

Of course, it's not just manpower, but logistical costs as well.

Aegis is not that expensive in the grand scheme of things. The F100s cost is ~$560million. Figure some added labor costs to build in the US vice Spain and you have the cost of LCS. And LCS requires a mission module to truly be capable when forward deployed. And LCS leverages heavily from existing systems. Take a look at the PEO Ships website. The only thing really new with LCS is the integration of the existing combat systems. That is already done with F100 and F310 because they use 

Given that F100 has already been designed there is no costs associated with design. There is no new cost associated with the ship. The only cost is the shipbuilding costs themselves. 

Why build an Aegis frigate? Easier battlegroup integration. Can be dispatched to perform LRS&T BMD missions. Can defend itself from almost every threat, ie can be sent into a hot area without a babysitter. Commonality logistically and in personnel. 

Why compound your logistical tail if you don't have to? That's one of the things I don't understand about LCS. The only saving grace about the LCS program was its size, 55+ ships. That's not going to happen, so the advantages of a totally new class of ship is diminished (And when we say totally new really we're talking the GD version. The LockMart version takes heavily from Aegis.).
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    benellim4    2/13/2008 4:38:02 PM

There are problems supporting legacy systems with 30 hulls or less. 

Of course, it's not just manpower, but logistical costs as well.
 

It's not just a skimmer issue - it can also be applied to subs.
to give another angle, the switch to BGY-1 on Collins gives a smaller sub force like Oz some extra benefits.
 
- common combat room
- it means that the 6 USN sailors currently attached to RAN can act as defacto trainers as they can pass on common SSN/SSBN/SSGN practices to a Collins combat team.  It's a win win, after 2 years they end up returning "home" with australian dolphins and take back saturated diesel warfighting experience - RAN gets a fast tracked learning environment where we look and feel with US nukes and their "combat rooms", plus we get to learn how to deal with an adversarial nuke threat by training osmosis 24/7/365 rather than just pick up random notes after every RIMPAC or TALISMAN etc.....
- it means that we can slipstream improvements at both software interface and human interface much faster than training in isolation.
 
I'm curious as to whether the common combat room philosophy was driven by the sub community and expanded across the warfighting portion of the fleet - or whether it originated with the skimmers.  From my reading of events, it appears to be something driven by the subs in a quest to cut down costs and to stem "peripheral" logistics and through life cost blowouts etc.....

 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       2/13/2008 4:59:47 PM
I'm sorry but I really don't buy the argument that a fleet of 30+ ships is somehow cost ineffective for training due to lack of efficiency of scale.  Not to the point where it makes sense to triple the cost of the ship just to gain a common CIC with your cruisers.

I am not talking about legacy systems.  I am not talking about a ship designed for battlegroup integration.  I am not talking about a ship that can perform BMD missions.  I am not talking about a ship that needs to be "sent into a hot area".  And I am definitely not talking about LCS.

I am talking about a ship that fulfills the mission that the O.H. Perry class does today,  but  cheaper to operate and with more capable systems.  Ships that are cheap to build and that we can have a large number of, for anti piracy and  generally showing the flag.

The problem with throwing in SM2/3 and Aegis and all that stuff is that the design will sink under the tons of new requirements that are going to be slapped onto it before it ever leaves the drawing board.  Limit it on pupose by giving it systems to do the mission you want, and do it well, but aren't suitable for  craziness like BMD frigates, and you might actually get an affordable design out of it that you can  field a lot more than 30 of.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Some things none of you have considered.   2/13/2008 6:32:07 PM
1. The old radar systems are not going to be able to handle the new USN rockets that are coming into the pipeline. Some of the new STANDARDS are going to be an awful surprise when they show up in quantity.

2. AEGIS is a common architecture. These frigates are going to be out there all by themselves. They are part of an overall battlespace data sharing network. That means we would like the radars to have comparative bit streams and operative characteristics?

3. Perry is a rotten design produced by a chimpanzee committee, back in the days when the Navy had to share  one banana  among seven  chimps. Zumwalt  wasn't exactly the best go to guy for what a frigate should look like.

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

 
Quote    Reply

thumper    General purpose yes, Knox no   2/13/2008 7:22:27 PM
I agree Herald, whatever is built must be general purpose and cheap enough to build and operate in numbers yet still capable enough to be an assets to the main battle fleet and powerful enough to show the local despot who is boss. If Aegis can be fitted on the cheap then great, otherwise another radar will have to do.

While I like the idea of an updated Knox , especially for it;s ability to mount a 5 inch gun, I discarded that idea because it did not have the facilities to handle two birds and it would need to use diesel or steam turbines. I really don't know much about those new diesels you mentioned and I hope you enlighten me about them but my gut feeling is that no matter what diesel is selected they still require more labor, they still are noisier than a gas turbine, and they do not put out nearly as much power as a gas turbine for a given weight and size.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/13/2008 8:22:21 PM

I agree Herald, whatever is built must be general purpose and cheap enough to build and operate in numbers yet still capable enough to be an assets to the main battle fleet and powerful enough to show the local despot who is boss. If Aegis can be fitted on the cheap then great, otherwise another radar will have to do.

While I like the idea of an updated Knox , especially for it;s ability to mount a 5 inch gun, I discarded that idea because it did not have the facilities to handle two birds and it would need to use diesel or steam turbines. I really don't know much about those new diesels you mentioned and I hope you enlighten me about them but my gut feeling is that no matter what diesel is selected they still require more labor, they still are noisier than a gas turbine, and they do not put out nearly as much power as a gas turbine for a given weight and size.

1. Fire Scouts and a Seahawk. There is room enough.
2. The latest MAN marine diesels are something extraordinary. These trace their history of origin all the way back to the days of Tirpitz when he was looking for a way to  increase the range of his dreadnought  battleships. Those engines failed.  the Germans tried agin for the Scharnhorsts and the Bismarks to build  powerful marine diesels. Failed. Third time is the charm. Many of the large freighters and bulk container ships building are diesel engined

MAN Diesels.

The reduced size engine crews, fuel economy, and the almost ridiculous reliability of the current generation of engines are what make them attractive as a frigate powerplants

Plus the Lycoming gas turbines we use are in danger of becoming unsupported tech. That is a potential dangerous hole in our capability.

We can use COTS commercial support for diesels.


3. The 5 inch gun can make nice sized holes where a pirate village used to be. Not all naval gunfire is NAVAL TARGET.

Herald
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

thumper    5 inch guns and MAN Diesels   2/13/2008 9:50:27 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.

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       2/13/2008 10:08:29 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" width=626 border=0>
 
Not suggesting that exact ship is the solution, but the overall size will be the same.

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics