Posted on 01/10/2018 7:58:08 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Lockheed Martin model of their proposed frigate design, based on the Littoral Combat Ship, on display at the 2018 Surface Navy Association conference. Note VLS hatches on foredeck, behind turret and flanked by OTH launchers.
UPDATED with CNO comment on importance of program CRYSTAL CITY: By the end of March, the Navy will award four to six contracts for “conceptual” designs of a future frigate. That ship that must cost under $950 million, have “Grade A shock hardening” on key systems to survive blasts, and carry at least 16 Vertical Launch System cells to defend itself and nearby vessels, program manager Regan Campbell told the Surface Navy Association conference here.
Those requirements, among many others, demand a much more formidable and more expensive vessel than the current, controversial Littoral Combat Ship. They make winning harder for the builders of the two existing LCS variants — Marinette Marine’s Freedom monohull and Austal’s Independence trimaran — which are making ships for under $500 million apiece that lack VLS and heavy-duty shock hardening. On the other hand, that $950 million maximum may be a challenge for the larger and more capable foreign frigates in the competition.
A crucial caveat: The forthcoming decision doesn’t knock anybody out of the competition. The four to six winners will split $90 million to do conceptual designs due in 16 months, and they’ll get intensive feedback from the Navy how to improve their work. But the Navy will also keep updating a “bidders’ library” with the latest specifications and files of Government Furnished Information (GFI), which will be available to all interested and qualified parties. When the government issues its final Request For Proposals (RFP) late this year — in the first quarter of fiscal year 2019 — any company can enter the “full and open competition,” even if they didn’t get a conceptual design contract.
The choice that really counts will come in 2020, when the Navy chooses one design to actually build. The first ship will be bought in 2020 (and delivered in 2026), the second in ’21, and two a year after that.
That $950 million figure is the maximum average price allowed for ships two to 20: The first of class can (and almost certainly will) go higher. Those caveats aside, the $950 million is the real average cost per ship, including the Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) provided by the Navy rather than the winning contractor. (You can hide hundreds of millions in costs by not counting all GFE).
The Government Furnished Equipment will be expensive, Campbell said, to ensure that whichever design wins, it will have compatible technology with the rest of the fleet. Used tried-and-true tech also reduces cost and risk. That includes standard Navy radars and the COMBATSS-21 combat management system, a dialed-down derivative of the Aegis air and missile defense system used on destroyers. (By contrast, the original LCS were allowed to use sui generis electronics, creating all sorts of headaches).
The GFE also includes Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems, specifically the full-size “strike length” version capable of carrying the Navy’s entire array of offensive and defensive missiles. Earlier frigate concepts had made VLS optional; now it’s mandatory, Campbell made clear. 16 VLS cells is the minimum, 32 the preferred or “objective” number. In addition, the frigate needs eight dedicated on-deck launchers for Over-The-Horizon anti-ship missiles.
The VLS cells, by contrast, are primarily needed for anti-aircraft and anti-cruise-missile weapons, like the SM-2 Standard Missile and the ESSM Sea Sparrow. (Though VLS can load offensive weapons if the situation warrants, she said). These defensive weapons are not just to protect the frigate itself but nearby vessels for which it’s providing “close escort.” How close? Campbell carefully didn’t say — details are classified — but she made clear there was no appetite, and no money, for the frigate to replicate the extensive air and missile defense capabilities of a full-size Aegis destroyer.
While better armed and better protected than LCS, the future frigates will still — like LCS — serve as the “low” half of a “high-low” mix alongside destroyers and cruisers. Unlike LCS, however, the frigates will have the VLS, shock hardening and reinforced hull structures to accompany the destroyers into so-called contested environments under threat from a hostile and well-armed enemy. That’s a big shift from the early vision for LCS. The frigates will also have the command, control, and communications systems to work with amphibious and aircraft carrier task forces. In short, the Navy doesn’t want an auxiliary ship: It wants a frigate that can fight with the fleet.
UPDATE On an even larger scale, the frigate is a test case for a new and more streamlined approach to shipbuilding, the Chief of Naval Operators told reporters later at the conference. “We’ve been doing anything we can to reform our (acquisition) processes so we can challenge the assumptions, particularly (for) shipbuilding — I think we can just do that a little faster,” Adm. John Richardson said. “The one that we’re going to see, I hope, a big step forward in that regard is the frigate program.”
UPDATE We need to get the frigate right, Adm. RIchardson said, “not only because we need those ships, but also we’re really trying to approach how we design and build of our ships differently, which might define a new era in shipbuilding.”
Original layout for the angled “harpoon” launch tubes.
Get more bang for the buck bringing back naval frigates, and more ships too.
Since these are the main roles for the class why not discard the stern helipad and hangers and replace that space with additional VLS?
Lengthen it, make it thin and fast, and call it a light cruiser.
CLAAG (Cruiser Light Anti-Air Guided)
Less firepower than a WWII destroyer, and with a deeper draft. But they are awesome for defense contractors.
These ships are a tacit admission that the USN has decided to avoid surface warfare.
A modern frigate with 8 Harpoons would sink any ship of any navy in WW2.
They can still sink any ship of any navy.
“Lengthen it, make it thin and fast,”
The broader beamed Arleigh-Burks are faster in actual combat than the older very narrow designs in everything but glass smooth seas. They have much better sea keeping characteristics. They also have more room and use less fuel for ships of similar size.
They are also bigger than a WW2 cruiser
Lastly, the helicopter is one of the most important weapons on the ship for anti-submarine warfare. A helicopter is also a radar platform to help detect and identify other vessels. It is also used to rescue downed pilots and transfer supplies and personnel. You don’t want to remove a helicopter from the ship.
They lack the ability to penetrate battleship armor and only pack a 488lb warhead. But no ship today comes close to that kind of armor.
In any case, this LCS upgrade cannot survive a duel with a T-72 tank on the beach, or defend itself from the ubiquitous motorboat close in attack. It also has no ASW defense.
It’s a dog.
Its unlikely that Harpoons, with a 500 lb warhead, could have sunk a WWII capital ship. Many of these vessels took much worse hits from multiple equivalent weapons, many of which were even heavier armor-piercing shells, and underwater hits from torpedoes also.
Even destroyers are known to have survived multiple hits from equivalent weapons, such as kamikazes loaded with 500lb bombs or the like.
Granted the Harpoon warhead is higher tech than WWII weapons of similar weight, but it can’t be that much better.
Same junk, different day!!
Anyone know the specs on the forward gun?
This is another appalling example of crony capitalism based upon unrealistic requirements that do not meet the requirements to combat our enemies.
Likely a 3” or 5”.
Put Harpoon in VLS or get if off the ship
It would be a bit absurd for such a vessel to come in to within 3000 meters of enemy forces ashore (direct fire range of a T-72, more or less). Ordinary modern 155mm field artillery would be much more dangerous, going out to 20-30K or so. But that is true for any ship.
Such targets are best left to air attack.
yup - sucking on that big taxpayer tit
Putting Harpoon in VLS wastes VLS cells. Harpoon doesnt need VLS, and can be carried at no cost (little extra displacement, etc.).
It a tack-it-on sort of weapon.
Best to use VLS for munitions that need that.
Replace Harpoon with a better AS missile.
This seems an anti-air optimized configuration, which would be useful for that purpose I think, unlike the previous designs. If you need a ship to do everything then you need a bigger ship.
Understood about the anti-sub tactics. But a small class (4-6?) of CLAAGs could make sense as part of a carrier centered force. Relatively less expensive. Freeing up destroyers for other roles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.