Utopia Talk / Politics / The US Navy's next frigate

murder rank	Mon Dec 22 00:01:30 The U.S. Navy has confirmed its decision to acquire a new FF(X) frigate with a design based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s Legend class National Security Cutter, though there are immediate questions about its expected configuration. The new warships, the first of which is set to be launched in 2028, are intended to fill the gap left by the cancellation of the abortive Constellation class frigate program. Read the rest here: https://ww...l-be-the-navys-new-ffx-frigate
Pillz rank	Mon Dec 22 00:17:19 This is fine. It'll cost less than designing a new frigate that's already obsolete, too. All you need now is something to fill holes while you figure out naval drone strategy.
Rugian rank	Mon Dec 22 00:17:56 "The new warships, the first of which is set to be launched in 2028" Anyone want to take a guess as to who it's going to be named after? :)
Pillz rank	Mon Dec 22 00:21:21 Should be named after Charlie Kirk
jergul rank	Mon Dec 22 12:54:49 Ruggy Nah. Way too small a vessel. See what capital ships are due for commissioning before end of term.
Rugian rank	Tue Dec 23 01:56:33 Ahahahahhahahahabahahahaha http://uto...hread=95417&time=1766447752058
Seb rank	Tue Dec 23 02:03:32 No vls? What's the point of them then? Can't defend themselves or contribute meaningfully to strike.
tumbleweed rank	Tue Dec 23 02:12:09 "What's the point of them then?" they will look nice Trump says he will be involved in the design (makes total sense) & repeatedly has complained about ships not looking pleasing enough
murder rank	Tue Dec 23 07:14:55 "No vls? What's the point of them then?" They will clear the oceans of lightly armed pirates. -
Sam Adams rank	Tue Dec 23 08:23:32 "What's the point of them then?" Sinking subs, long range patrol, training, sinking Venezuelan tankers, landing seals, all the baby stuff you don't task a real warship for but still do need reasonable length and mass for comfortable open ocean sailing at speed. Navies have successfully employed medium-light ships in this roll for at least 300 years. As long as we have no more than 5 to 10, that's fine.
Seb rank	Wed Dec 24 02:40:18 Sam: They won't be sinking subs because without vlms they can only have CIWS so they are vulnerable to enemy aircraft or indeed subs armed with sub launched anti-ship missiles. If they need to be in an escort group, that's kinda defeated the point of ASW frigates that need to operate autonomously to cover a large area. The whole point of this class, as I understood it, was additional mass for strike groups and ASW. Not having a VLMs is like a Napoleonic era frigate not having cannons but lots of men with muskets. Your use cases here are essentially all peacetime. No utility at all in a major conflict and all tasks that would be de-prioritised in a conflict anyway - they don't really free any capacity to up - just completely pointless and moronic. Needs a VLMs with a decent short range anti-air missile and option for anti-ship. Then you've can use it for sub hunting etc.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Dec 24 05:18:14 ”They won't be sinking subs because without vlms they can only have CIWS” So no weapons exist other than those that fit in VLS cells? Retarded. "Not having a VLMs is like a Napoleonic era frigate not having cannons but lots of men with muskets." A bit ironic since one of your countries two heros in the war died at Trafalgar specifically due to a lack of musket fighters on his flagship.
Seb rank	Wed Dec 24 12:17:54 Sam Adams: Nothing effective for an effective layered air and missile defence, no.
Seb rank	Wed Dec 24 12:21:47 Victory had loads of Marines and crew with small arms. So did the French. But I'm not sure Nelson's plan at Trafalgar would have worked if his ships were predominantly armed with muskets.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Dec 28 21:00:53 Nelson had a handful of lightly armed frigates to scout and not fight much. Oh gee it's almost like it's the same exact roll as the modern ship with the same name. Go figure.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Dec 28 21:07:21 "Victory had loads of Marines and crew with small arms.” Ya but not allowed to fight properly because Nelson was afraid they might set the sails on fire. His one great mistake. Not that it had any effect on the final outcome. It just got him personally(probably)... It's possible he would have still been hit even if victory was properly manned by marines up high. His odds would certainly have gone up.
murder rank	Sun Dec 28 21:21:57 These things will be $1 billion per ship clay pigeons. They would have been better off fixing the LCSs. -
Habebe rank	Sun Dec 28 23:15:22 When will have Spacefprce space ships and space sharks with frigging laser beams on thete heads???
murder rank	Sun Dec 28 23:43:35 "By next year. The end of 2027 at the latest." -- Elon
Seb rank	Mon Dec 29 01:21:11 Sam: Frigates were lightly armed in comparison to a ship of the line, but very much able to defend themselves against other frigates, and outrun a ship of the line. A modern frigate without the ability to defend itself against anti-ship missiles or aircraft is like Nelson's frigates having no guns at all. And an effective picket line
Seb rank	Mon Dec 29 01:22:37 *an effective picket ship needs to be able to have basic ability to defend itself from air and missile attack or it will not be able to operate outside of a task group. It will just get sunk quickly.
Habebe rank	Mon Dec 29 02:05:20 Sometimes I get the vibe the MIC just phones it in....the government flaunts useless weapons to just make their friends money.
murder rank	Mon Dec 29 13:19:30 There are competing interest involved. The easy solution would be to just make more Burkes faster. If you insist on saving some money, then just revert to a previous proven flight of the Burke's and equip them like they were going to equip the Constellation frigates. Easy peasy. But the Navy doesn't want more Burke's, they want a brand new ship because ... well the air force is getting new fighters and bombers. And they sure as hell wouldn't want smaller degraded Burkes. They want NEW. Of course new means unproven, which means higher costs and slower development and production. But the administration wants FAST because China ... and because Trump likes being able to claim that we have the largest Navy. It also wants cheap. But fast and cheap means something already in production and proven, which means Legacy class cutters because that's the next largest class of combat(ish) ships we produce. Of course those aren't designed for actual combat, so we're going to crank out coast guard cutters ... and send them to combat lightly armed pirates. -
Seb rank	Mon Dec 29 14:26:21 Adapting cutters to be a light frigate ought to be easy. But it means a vls. More ABs in a high-low mix seems sensible. Or if this is about a dedicated ASW platform, the T26 is right there (missed out last time as not in the water): a big enough order book now (34) across Canada, Australia, Norway and UK that spiral development is possible, especially if the US went for it.
Seb rank	Mon Dec 29 14:32:28 I assume coastguard cutters are already built to military spec, even if not fitted for serious combat. If not, then that's an even worse idea. You can just send a standard coast guard cutter to deal with pirates if the bulk of the USN was busy fighting China. But it couldn't even do escort duty against the Yemeni done/missile threat without a decent short range VLS system. Totally pointless for the USN I'd have thought. And I assume the mission spec is distributed ASW / air/missile picket until it's safe to move a carrier group forward.
Seb rank	Mon Dec 29 18:21:41 4500t is the same as the French FDI frigates that sport 8 Exocets and 16 to 32 vls cells for aster 15/30 as well as a similar load out of guns and CIWS air defence. Also needs about 30 fewer crew to operate.
jergul rank	Mon Dec 29 19:27:27 Smaller vessels have endurance issues.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Dec 29 21:04:48 Seb why do you insist only VLS weapons are useful? This is very silly. And jergul is correct. If you want to do a good job offshore for any amount of time you want a larger ship.
jergul rank	Mon Dec 29 23:51:26 The problem with VLS systems is simple. The US has more launch tubes than missiles to put in them. 8200 I think it is.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Dec 30 04:20:48 Lol no
Seb rank	Tue Dec 30 12:26:54 Sam: There are no decent mid range anti-air/missile systems that aren't vertical launch. There's a reason for that, and why every major manufacturer goes VLS for mid range: turret or rail based systems are cumbersome to reload and being directional impact effectiveness (missile needs to turn). Smaller missiles like RAM can be turret mounted but that's a very short range system equivalent to e.g. The FDIs mistral thing. Frigates in an ASW or anti-ship role really need to operate alone. Having only RAM as an effective anti-air / missile system leaves it absurdly vulnerable. Essentially: way over powered for anti-privacy, absurdly vulnerable for even escorting civilian ships through areas of moderate asymmetric risk from drones/missiles, and completely useless for ASW in a hot war. I guess maybe defending underwater infrastructure in US waters. It's a very strange use of 150 sailors and 4500t of warship. And it's not just that it's launch systems aren't orientated vertical. It's underarmed for its size.
jergul rank	Tue Dec 30 18:50:48 Seb There are not enough missiles for VLSs. That is the core problem. If you rake up everything that fits, you might have 1.3 missiles per VLS, but that includes stripping missiles away from ground based systems and under no circumstances exporting any. The US is thinking a modular approach with place on the oversized helideck for container sized missile launcher. Which, well sure, if there had been any missiles to be had. Ultimately, I dont really know what the US is supposed to do with its navy. A sentiment shared by US military planners I expect.
Rugian rank	Tue Dec 30 20:08:20 The OP does point out likely locations for VLS to be placed based on the renderings. There is nothing to suggest that this class will lack VLS capability, it's merely a question of how many. The article also specifically calls out its planned usage as a launcher for unmanned vehicles. Pure speculation, but maybe the Navy is taking some lessons from Ukraine and figuring that the future will increasingly revolve around light ships that can project force with relatively cheap drone weapons, rather than with conventional missiles that are many times more expensive. Regardless, it's not wise to make any sort of conclusions at this very preliminary stage.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Dec 30 20:09:15 Mk29 launcher for a essm seb. Plus you see in Ukraine we attach all sorts of missiles to all sorts of platforms with simple adapters. This is trivial. VLS is simply a convient arrangement, nothing more. Lol@jergul.
Seb rank	Wed Dec 31 00:29:24 Sam: Exactly, a 1975 system built before the lessons of the Falklands. I think it's not been used on any US ship since the wasp class, likely because they didn't want to re-design for a vls and had batch built them for the class, and being directional isn't a bad thing when you have a runway to worry about. ESSMs these days are quad packed into Mark 41s
Seb rank	Wed Dec 31 00:34:43 Rugian: Nah they confirmed no VLS for the first batch. Retrofitting in the future. But kinda silly because the conflict these are needed for is likely much closer than a retrofit cycle.
Rugian rank	Wed Dec 31 02:53:59 Seb Ah. I didn't check for subsequent updates to the initial article. But also, my theory is kind of confirmed: "The Navy also has an explicit plan to employ the FF(X)s as “motherships” for uncrewed surface vessels (USV), likely offering a distributed arsenal, as well as additional sensors, for the frigates to leverage during operations." The Navy sees the future...and it's drone swarms apparently. Someone in a senior position was clearly impressed with how well Ukraine has fucked the Russian Navy.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Dec 31 09:18:24 "i think it's not been used on any US ship since the wasp class” Wrong. It's used on modern carriers. But again, the type of launch rail you choose is literally the last thing that matters to a rocket. Point is this ship WILL carry plenty of short to mid range weapons, and VLS verse no VLS is meaningless.
Seb rank	Wed Dec 31 09:31:04 Rugian: If your drones are being used primarily to defend the mothership you've got your design wrong. Cf. Literally every other mothership concept. The USN isn't alone in having had this idea. Sam: Aircraft carriers are one of the few exceptions where the directionality doesn't matter because it's imposed by flight ops anyway. Those are expected to be escorted at all times. Directionality matters enormously for short range air defence against missiles for very obvious reasons.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Dec 31 10:29:39 No it doesn't. If you can hit a missile you can turn in a second just after launch. And VLS cells are never pointed at the enemy.
jergul rank	Wed Dec 31 10:51:11 lol@sammy You lack the industrial depth to support VLS launchers. Its fine for as long as you do punitive raids against the flavour of the day for imagined or real wrongdoings, but extremely hard to imagine how you might plan to go face to face conventionally against the PLA navy. Factually, the reason this is a design concept at all is because you lack the industrial depth serial build larger vessels and are already maxed out and delayed by the subs and carriers you do try to produce.
jergul rank	Wed Dec 31 10:55:29 Ruggy Drones are conceptually the same thing as really crappy missiles. A child of necessity for Ukraine, with the virtue of being affordable. You cannot do affordable for MIC reasons.
Seb rank	Wed Dec 31 10:59:53 Sam: On vertical launch missiles orientate to point to the target in under a second before their main engine has burned giving them 360 coverage. From a trained launcher, if the axis isn't pointed in the direction of the target you accelerate and turn losing several seconds (which is decisive) in a large turning circle. This matters for successful intercept of multiple fast low flying missiles in mid to short range, as the RN discovered in the Falklands. Analysis of engagements in that conflict drove the shift to vertical launch. Given modern anti-ship missiles can coordinate and perform a time on target attack from multiple directions, you run the very real risk of these frigates being successfully attacked by e.g. the type 93 subs they're supposed to be hunting.
Rugian rank	Wed Dec 31 16:50:21 Jergul See, you can't be the same person who gets ecstatic at the possibility of Third World countries using drones as a cost-effective counter against 100x more expensive US missiles, and then mock the US for deciding to adopt the same strategy on a much larger. Jergul / Seb I can see the possibility of a future US strategy where a multitude of smaller (and hopefully therefore less expensive) ships are used primarily as deployment platforms for (less expensive) drone attacks. The smaller size / lower cost means more ships that can be built and spread out to effectively cover a larger theater of operations, and it also matters less if one of them in turn is damaged by an enemy drone. Combine the lower cost per hull with the fact that the US spends way on its military than anyone else, and you could soon have a fuckton of these ships.
Rugian rank	Wed Dec 31 16:51:25 *much larger scale
Seb rank	Wed Dec 31 19:55:17 Rugian: Distributed lethality is a great idea, lots of little attack drones etc. The RN is using exactly that concept for ASW in the north Atlantic GIUK gap, with planned Type 92 sloop sensor platforms and 93 uuvs but the key point is the central nodes (Type 26 or 31 frigates) have to be able to defend themselves otherwise you have a massive vulnerability; and your fleet or remote vehicles winds up mostly protecting the central node. The current FF(x) then is back to front: the command ships principle armament is 16 naval strike missiles for land/sea attack, with no local area defence for its future fleet of unmanned surface or sub-sea vehicles. What you want is something larger, a multirole frigate with modular mission bay and a decent mid range anti-missile system; and a bunch of autonomous corvette sized ships and mini-subs with sensors and a few weapons. Genuinely, the current FF(x) approach is very silly.
jergul rank	Wed Dec 31 20:23:11 Ruggy I am the rofl@subsonic dude. Drones are stupid. A global posture based on smaller ships pretty much brings you back to the age of coal stations to sustain low endurance vessels And with such a network, why ships at all? Just use the bases for force projection. Seb What is UKs missile to VLS ratio? It must be less than 1. A rather significant flaw in any posture ointment.
Seb rank	Wed Dec 31 20:32:09 jergul: It being less than 1 is a bit like the old question on what the mean number of arms humans have. The question is how much less than 1. But it would be an odd idea to reduce the number of VLS cells to meet peacetime loadouts. It's much easier to procure more missiles than it is to increase more VLS cells on platforms.
Seb rank	Wed Dec 31 20:32:56 "A frigate is for life, not just for Christmas" Jergul.
jergul rank	Wed Dec 31 21:33:15 Yes, we have seen by how the UK has surged missile production to aid Ukraine how easy that is. The UK has overinvested in VLSs. A fraction of the number could expend any realistic missile supply.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: