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       2/15/2008 11:46:28 PM

No one yet has given a reason why not take the existing FFG-7 hull and machinery and fit, maybe lengthen it a few feet, put a new superstructure and weapons fit to it. F-100 to me seems like overkill, especially when it comes to manning.

Would it be possible to fit a useful general purpose suite of weapons and sensors to such a hull and would it not be cheaper to build and operate than an F-100?


The hull framing and the entire compartmentalization scheme is wrong to take a gun/VLS combo pack forward. the superstructure offers too many dead zones for weapon placement, and it is TOPHEAVY . Too many defects to modify , better to design from scratch.

U think I said this.

Absalons are decent-want more open ocean capability than as-built into the design. Also SLOW.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Meanwhile back at the FFG-7   2/16/2008 12:12:02 AM

No one yet has given a reason why not take the existing FFG-7 hull and machinery and fit, maybe lengthen it a few feet, put a new superstructure and weapons fit to it. F-100 to me seems like overkill, especially when it comes to manning.

Would it be possible to fit a useful general purpose suite of weapons and sensors to such a hull and would it not be cheaper to build and operate than an F-100?


...but if we go and create a modernized FFG-7 type,
with all the kit we deem is necessary and desired of a vessel its size,
even if we give it that CEA-FAR/CEA-MOUNT set up instead of a reduced architecture SPY/Aegis set up,
when all is said and done, won't we in effect have created an F100 all over again?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/16/2008 12:50:06 AM

No one yet has given a reason why not take the existing FFG-7 hull and machinery and fit, maybe lengthen it a few feet, put a new superstructure and weapons fit to it. F-100 to me seems like overkill, especially when it comes to manning.

Would it be possible to fit a useful general purpose suite of weapons and sensors to such a hull and would it not be cheaper to build and operate than an F-100?


1)  the base design has lousy arcs of fire.  it cannot use all systems sympathetically across an optimum engagement arc
2) lancing the superstructure is a non trivial exercise, it's basically a rebuild, and that means balance as well as internal efficiency redesigns
3) manning can be reduced to a certain level.  The USN has been involved with RAN for the last few years to look at how we man vessels with reduced complement and still don't jeopardise damage response
 
There's a sliding scale of efficiency that is exponential as the vessel gets older.  Its better for industry, new systems development, integration of new tech and overall capability issues to cycle platforms out earlier rather than see a false economy in service life extensions...
 
Quote    Reply

thumper    Who said we use the same superstructure   2/16/2008 1:17:12 AM
GF, these are new build ships with new superstructures and weapons based on the Perry hull and machinery.

"U think I said this." I am not sure I understand if this was directed at me.

Hull framing and compartmentalization makes sense, especially considering the amount of space VLS takes up.

"better to design from scratch " Why reinvent the wheel? We are taking about a patrol combattant, a frigate! This does not and should not be cutting edge and it should not be able to defeat the Russian navy on its own.

This ship is supposed to be cheap enough to build and operate to have in numbers. It needs to be able to  chase down and board merchantmen, show the flag in the armpit of the world, maintain presence in the world sea lanes, provide a place for two asw helos or scout/spotter aircraft to land, escort the gators as part of a larger surface force, provide fire support for the grunts, perform ASW picket duty for the CBGs in a pinch, and put the fear of God into your local cheap two bit despot. A frigate.

Why does it then need VLS? It needs the aviation capability, it needs a 5 inch gun (agreed could be a problem, note to self redesign space forward to accommodate), it needs a sonar and decoys, it needs a point air defense capability, it needs a couple of machine guns or light auto cannon. Harpoon or some other anti ship weapon would be nice but not necessary. It needs to do 27-30 knots and it needs 4500 mile endurance.

The perrys had about 175 men. Perhaps they could get the manning down to 125 to both operate and fight the ship.




 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/16/2008 1:46:43 AM
There is less hack and slash in a rework of a DEEP frame construction Knox hull than there is in the shallow frame construction of the Perry. The framing the Knox already has for the hull engineering space layouts  that we don't have to radically rework the entire hull to work in a couple of diesel/electric engine packs. The superstructure aft is readily adaptable to helo operations and to a transom ramp.

The really major rework headache in the Knox is an amidships launch recovery space above decks in the deckhouse for the UUV/USV system. You can modify the transom  to install a stern ramp for RHIB operations.

You know I do have reasons for suggesting the things I suggest.

Not to mention that I firmly believe in STEEL.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006    FFG- 500    2/16/2008 2:04:01 AM
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/1844/ffgxlineartvq2uv9.jpg">
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd    re:FFG- 500   2/16/2008 3:52:43 AM
BLUIE006,
It's a nice design, but there are a couple things that need changing:
 
>   There is no anti-missile defense in the aft arc.  A RAM launcher (or 2) could both cover this arc and add some additional defensive capability.
 
>   The aft VLS missiles are probably too close to your aircraft operating areas for safety.  You will probably need to locate them all forward.  The NLOS missiles might be OK because they are for offensive use, or they might need be relocated next to the Harpoon launchers across the stern of the ship
 
Quote    Reply

thumper    Who said we use the same superstructure   2/16/2008 4:27:37 AM
GF, these are new build ships with new superstructures and weapons based on the Perry hull and machinery.

"U think I said this." I am not sure I understand if this was directed at me.

Hull framing and compartmentalization makes sense, especially considering the amount of space VLS takes up.

"better to design from scratch " Why reinvent the wheel? We are taking about a patrol combattant, a frigate! This does not and should not be cutting edge and it should not be able to defeat the Russian navy on its own.

This ship is supposed to be cheap enough to build and operate to have in numbers. It needs to be able to  chase down and board merchantmen, show the flag in the armpit of the world, maintain presence in the world sea lanes, provide a place for two asw helos or scout/spotter aircraft to land, escort the gators as part of a larger surface force, provide fire support for the grunts, perform ASW picket duty for the CBGs in a pinch, and put the fear of God into your local cheap two bit despot. A frigate.

Why does it then need VLS? It needs the aviation capability, it needs a 5 inch gun (agreed could be a problem, note to self redesign space forward to accommodate), it needs a sonar and decoys, it needs a point air defense capability, it needs a couple of machine guns or light auto cannon. Harpoon or some other anti ship weapon would be nice but not necessary. It needs to do 27-30 knots and it needs 4500 mile endurance.

The perrys had about 175 men. Perhaps they could get the manning down to 125 to both operate and fight the ship.




 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       2/16/2008 7:08:16 AM

BLUIE006,

It's a nice design, but there are a couple things that need changing:

 

>   There is no anti-missile defense in the aft arc.  A RAM launcher (or 2) could both cover this arc and add some additional defensive capability.

 

>   The aft VLS missiles are probably too close to your aircraft operating areas for safety.  You will probably need to locate them all forward.  The NLOS missiles might be OK because they are for offensive use, or they might need be relocated next to the Harpoon launchers across the stern of the ship


Not  my design ...  but  agree  RAM/ laser Phalanx  AA  good  idea, maybe add SPY-1F-Illuminators etc ....  im no Naval Architect so i can't really comment ... 
Just like the fit out , think  it would  be suitable for Australia, and if the US got them ..it would make it so much easier...
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       2/16/2008 8:34:04 AM

BLUIE006,

It's a nice design, but there are a couple things that need changing:

 

>   There is no anti-missile defense in the aft arc.  A RAM launcher (or 2) could both cover this arc and add some additional defensive capability.

 

>   The aft VLS missiles are probably too close to your aircraft operating areas for safety.  You will probably need to locate them all forward.  The NLOS missiles might be OK because they are for offensive use, or they might need be relocated next to the Harpoon launchers across the stern of the ship


Not  my design ...  but  agree  RAM/ laser Phalanx  AA  good  idea, maybe add SPY-1F-Illuminators etc ....  im no Naval Architect so i can't really comment ... 
Just like the fit out , think  it would  be suitable for Australia, and if the US got them ..it would make it so much easier...
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics