JUST

>>33931012

Could be what it needs to be honest. Give the shipbuilders here a shock to the system that they can't fuck the navy over on prices so much any more.

>>33931012

Good. The last few ship designs have been absolute ass. Procurement of said ships has been even worse.

>>33931258
Zumwalt and Ford is just fine.

>because the zum was given the seawolf treatment it's shit

No

>>33931287

I'm talking pretty much exclusively about the LCS program. I love the Zumwalt, and think it'll be the testbed for future designs, and the Ford is great. Every new design will have teething issues but it seems like everything went wrong with the LCS program. Both designs.

File: 1434832050968.jpg (23KB, 350x328px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 350x328px

>>33931012
Good American ship builders are arrogant union cunts. They can't deliver, they don't get the contract. I've come around on the F-35 and the Zumwalt but this, this program has had no redeeming qualities since its inception. What does a blue water Navy want building a littoral frigate anyway. Fuck the LCS fuck American ship builders, fuck the MIC, and fuck this project. Lets buy anyone of the superior European designs, I'd prefer it to the USS Cracksmyhull over here.

I kinda hope the korean Incheon class frigate selected for the role

>>33931321
Thats the inherent problem when you are building shit in shipyards that are 100% non-competitive

Unionized government workers means they won't invest in improving anything, if the government isn't paying them to do so

Also the government doesn't want to let any of these shipyards die

>>33931012
Lockmart shills on suicide watch?

File: RS47749_Type-26-Global-Combat-Ship.jpg (745KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 1600x900px

>>33931012

Wow we might actually have a common NATO frigate if they pick the Type 26.

>>33931012

HAHAHAHAH AUSTAL AND LM ON SUICIDE WATCH

File: Canadian Type 26.jpg (52KB, 713x401px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 713x401px

>>33931510

Note the version that the UK is pitching to Canada, featuring a US style panel radar up top and all Mk41 silo at the front.

Its essentially a US frigate design style but by the Brits.

Obviously, any selection would still be built in the US. That will ALWAYS happen, but if this helps give the shipbuilders a kick up the ass to stop fucking around playing games so much with the budget then I'm all for whatever design it is.

One solid contract to not their designs should be enough to make them wake up to that we WILL go elsewhere if they try to pull some bullshit.

Impressive.

Only a country with such a bloated and inefficient military industrial complex as America could fuck up something as simple as choosing a good non corrodable metal for ship construction. Truly this is the result of years of skills degeneration caused by SJWs and millenials entering the workplace and taking on more and more decision making roles.

>>33931794
>essentially a US frigate design style but by the Brits

What on earth makes you think that? Because it has an option for Mk41 and fixed phased arrays?

You should spend more time on ships buddy.

>>33931012
they should buy chinese

>>33931886

>Mk45 Mod4
>Mk41
>Fixed active arrays
>Phalanx style mounting areas
>Uses the same MT30 as found on the Zumwalt
>Manufactured from the shared ship survivability research done by the US and UK since the 80s
>Focused on ASW as a hull design, one of the requested missions of the US frigate
>Has a large flight deck and very large modular bay, also something the USN wants

Obviously I wasn't trying to say its literally a US frigate, but clearly you wanted to shove words in someone's mouth. Point being, the hull design can fit the requires and the likely components that the US is aiming at for such an escort, as a hull it can fit to the USNs design specs, which is pretty much what the Canadian variant pitched to the RCN is.

>>33931922
>Mk45 Mod4
Third party mountable
>Mk41
Third party mountable
>Fixed active arrays
Third party mountable
>Phalanx style mounting areas
Third party mountable
>Uses the same MT30 as found on the Zumwalt
Third party mountable
>Manufactured from the shared ship survivability research done by the US and UK since the 80s
Joint project based on RN experience in the falklands.
>Focused on ASW as a hull design, one of the requested missions of the US frigate
Imported from the Type 23 project (an excellent candidate for the best ASW escort afloat)
>Has a large flight deck and very large modular bay, also something the USN wants
USN might want it but the RN has it, look at T45 - able to handle Chinook.

The multi-mission bay was a RN cost-saving requirement from the start, one BAE happily accommodated as it boosts flexibility and therefore exportability.

>>33931959
>The multi-mission bay was a RN cost-saving requirement from the start

Was it really? I'd think it was a hangup from the FSC project with the merging of C2(/C3) and C1 into GCS?

>>33932004
The merging caused the requirement. they wanted fewer dedicated platforms and more platforms that could switch roles with relative ease.

File: VT Cerberus.jpg (62KB, 1120x464px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1120x464px

>>33931959

I'm not entirely certain what you're trying to prove or say here. The point originally made is that the design already has a variant that could create a US frigate design based on the program requirements, something no other foreign frigate design has actually proven to such a similar degree yet, especially given the precise power generation choice, the modularity and the ASW focus.

Why are you trying to act as though I'm saying it actually is a US design or trying to take credit away from the UK or something? Sounds like you just misinterpreted the original post.

>The multi-mission bay was a RN cost-saving requirement from the start

It was always in the design from a very very early stage, back when they were thinking trimaran designs. Definitely wasn't a cost saver, the RN has been asking for a giant adaptable space in their ships for decades because of how obvious it was to everyone that new capabilities were going to come from unexpected places that might need it. Same reason the USN wants them too. Pic related, VT Cerberus was a very old proposal concept to the RN, and you can see the giant door to a mission bay there as well. Certainly isn't a new requirement for them.

What are those little 76mm guns used for on modern ships? Isn't everything done with ship-launched missiles now?

>>33931922
>Uses the same MT30 as found on the Zumwalt

>using a Rolls-Royce engine is proof that T26 is an American design

wat.

>>33932036
The point of my posts is that this is not a US design built by brits.

The multi-mission bay is a cost saver. it increases the cost of said ship, but it means you can build one class of ship as opposed to designing and building a whole new class for something else.

>>33932014

Thus coming around to the requirement for a GP/light ASW ship (C2/C3) because the Type 26 is a fat fuck warfighter who needs to be with the carrier group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fI7zm7RXHs

>>33932040
missiles are expensive and limited in quantity and sometimes you just need to put a few cannon rounds in something
Similar lesson as to what the Phantom learned over Vietnam

>>33932043

>What is reading comprehension

I said it's a design style, not that it actually IS a US design you moron.

Jesus christ, come into a thread to post a good picture of a suitable T26 variant and how itd be a great choice from the UK for the US to use and overdefensive bongs are just egging to look for the worst in every post to react to these days even when you're paying them a fucking compliment on a good design of theirs.

/k/ is apparently trollable even when you aren't actually trying to troll it.

>>33932069

>The point of my posts is that this is not a US design built by brits.

Which I literally never fucking said. I said that the Type 26 in its Canadian variant is already in a US design style. ie - It's suitable for the USN's competition if they are willing for it, but provided by the Brits.

Jesus fucking christ.

>>33931321
The thing is, the LCS is actually needed role in the USN. The whole frigate deal is kind of a shitshow because Congress is for some reason under the impression that the LCS should fight larger surface warships head on when at most it's just supposed to be a support and close range escort ship.

>>33931222
This. We also have trustworthy allies with whom we could do business. We sell/license much of our equipment, why not let it go both ways.

>>33931321
>What does a blue water Navy want building a littoral frigate anyway.
USN wanted something to operate in close to shores that wasn't a Burke, because Burkes are overgunned for the role of littoral combat
also a cheaper minesweeper
>>33932040
antiboghammar duty
antispeedboat duty
close-in defense against surface targets
ground bombardment if absolutely necessary and the target is both close enough and small enough to not warrant TLAM strike

>>33932094
>multiple people can't understand me

>this is their fault

>>33931012
>THE NAVY SO FUCKED UP THE NEW FRIGATE PROGRAM THEY'RE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT FOREIGN COMPETITORS.

That is an interesting interpretation of the USN looking at all frigate designs that are available.

>>33931440
Lockheed doesn't build the Independence class, which is the superior LCS.

>>33932133

In all seriousness, the Navy won't be allowed to look at foreign designs. Blumf certainly won't approve.

>>33932127

It'd be one thing to misinterpret the first post.

But to continually (seemingly willingly at this point) miss the point looks more like people just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing even after I've completely explained what I actually meant by it.

>>33932127

Don't be retarded, I understood what he meant.

>>33931321
>What does a blue water Navy want building a ASW picket anyway.

Think harder.

>>33932170
>What is a Burke for 500 Alex

>>33932191
Burkes cost billions of dollars and are better off escorting carriers than venturing into shallow waters by themselves.

>>33932191

Burkes should remain focused on AAW/BMD, that's what it is best at.

File: NorthKoreaSubs.jpg (62KB, 784x613px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 784x613px

>>33932208
so the burke blows at asw picket
well thats quite unfortunate

>>33932232

Didn't say that, neither will suggest it. Please don't put words in my mouth.

File: USCG_National_Security_Cutter_BERTHOLF_(WMSL-750).jpg (52KB, 800x475px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x475px

>>33931012
The National Security Cutter would be a good choice, American design, already in production, VERY upgradeable, most of the bugs already/ soon to be worked out.

So are we going to restart OHP production with new tech now?

>>33932281

no

>>33932232
>losing argument badly
>desperately try to strawman

cute, and the USN doesn't want or need mini Burkes

>>33931012
The LCS program is a mistake. This is the best possible option.

>>33932321
This isn't the LCS program, and the USN is still getting the planned 28 LCS.

>>33932321
Except it's not. The Navy is just pointing out that they don't really see the point in shoehorning the LCS into a role it was never designed for in the first place.

>>33932336
Just 28 of them?

>>33932349
That has been the plan for some time, 28 LCS and then a frigate.

>>33932349
It performs a fairly specialized role so there's no need to build hundreds of them.

>>33932368
>28 LCS and then a frigate
I was under the impression that the LCS was supposed to be a frigate, though.
Hence >>33932281
>>33932371
Sure is an awful lot of coastline in potential hotspots around the world, though...

>>33932091
>Similar lesson as to what the Phantom learned over Vietnam
But the gun didn't change anything, if anything it made the kill:loss ratio worse.

>>33931510
>France and Italy have the FREMM
>Germany the Baden-Württemberg
>Netherlands the De Zeven Provincen
>Spain the Alvaro de Bazan
Hurrah for NATO standardization :^)

Isn't the Type 26 way bigger than the LCS?

>>33932464
I'm just spewing memes, sorry

>>33932405
>I was under the impression that the LCS was supposed to be a frigate

Even though it's armament can rival an OHP is has never been a frigate.

>>33932405
>I was under the impression that the LCS was supposed to be a frigate, though.

The LCS was never intended to be a frigate. It's only supposed to perform support roles in shallow waters like minesweeping, ASW, and small boat defense. It was never supposed to fight equal size surface combatants or perform air defense, but Congress got angry because they're under the impression that every ship in the Navy should be able to solo an entire enemy fleet.

>Sure is an awful lot of coastline in potential hotspots around the world, though...

In actuality there's not that many. There's only two specific regions on the planet you'd likely see an LCS which are the Persian Gulf or in SEA.

>>33932405
>Sure is an awful lot of coastline in potential hotspots around the world,

MCM and ASW are just as important as shooting Hellfires at Iranian speedboats.

File: SHIP_LCS-GD_cutaway.png (502KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 720x540px

>>33932405
>>33932509
LCS is a Special forces support Corvette. It launches boats and helicopters full of spec-ops guys. It's built from the ground up as a modular support platform for special operations, basically a mobile seaborne base for a SEAL team or w/e

>>33932336

At this rate I hope they all just get transferred to the Coast Guard. The Independence-class in particular would be great for heavy-duty SAR work with its high speeds, stable design, and huge mission deck. And the Freedoms can be put to work tracking down smugglers in the Gulf of Mexico, or, I don't know, blockading Canada.

>>33932478

It is. Anything from 6,000 to 8,000 tonnes.

>>33931794
As if Canada can afford that thing.

>>33932735
ALL WE HAVE ARE TWELVE SHITFUCK FRIGATES

>>33932735
those poor migrants can use the money better!

File: cst.jpg (68KB, 300x379px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 300x379px

>>33932786
you pushed back too much procurement and now it's all hitting at once with an abysmal defence budget.

you're fucked, already lost your destroyers and replenishment capability and probably going to lose your subs completely, pray that trump starts pressuring weedman more on defence spending

>>33932786
>>33932880
Canada won't exist in 20-30 years, who gives a shit about navies

>>33932880
>weedman
Yeah, I used to think that was the only thing good to come of Trudeau getting elected....
but its not worth the price man
it ain't worth the price
and he isn't going to do it in the end, I'm calling it now

And don't forget our old-ass legacy bugs and how Justin is pondering purchasing America's surplus of F/A-18E/Fs - the same ones that are currently experiencing end-of-service issues like suffocating their fucking pilots and their engines cutting out

>>33932880
JUST

>>33931321
>why would a blue-water navy want to land on beaches and take islands

remember wwii

>>33932280
I could see 'em just welding on a "stealth" bodykit.

>>33931794
A E S T H E T I C

>>33933446
It is infuriating that we are only a couple years away from finally seeing a return on our investment into the F35 program and then he cancels it to by less capable jets that will need to be replaced in 10 years anyway

>>33931321
>Good American ship builders are arrogant union cunts.

Unions don't design the ships or control the budget. All of the recent MIC failures are down to gross mismanagement by industry executives who've been getting free money, gimmie deadlines and no-bid contracts for so long that they forgot that they're supposed to be delivering a functional product on time at the end of the contract.

>>33932280
I agree, plus it would give a bit of help to the Coasties regarding tooling costs and whatnot

File: the company trudeau keeps.jpg (3MB, 2600x3704px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2600x3704px

>>33935219
You got what you voted for.

>>33935674
I didn't vote for it, I want my province to secede

>>33931794
Goodness knows its going to turn into the ship designed by the Brits for the Americans, then built by the Americans and then sold to the Brits.

>>33935700
>Goodness knows its going to turn into the ship designed by the Brits for the Americans, then built by the Americans and then sold to the Canucks

ftfy

The LCS is a good ship design for all the wrong purposes. They are trying to make it a jack of all trades ship when it's clearly not. They should instead just make specialized LCS ships instead. Furthermore, the development into the industry would eventually lower costs.

>>33931794
>US frigate design style but by the Brits
/raises hand

What are the differences in engineering and design philosophy between the Brit and burger ship designers?

>>33935730
>3 primary roles
>jack of all trades

File: ajba.jpg (39KB, 846x459px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 846x459px

>>33935219
so the super hornet deal actually went through? what a fucking disaster, any chance of growlers to salvage it somewhat?

File: MF-1_3.jpg (199KB, 1615x975px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1615x975px

>>33931012

*Rubs Dutch merchant hands furiously.*

Can I interest you some in the new dutch multipurpose frigate? Built by Damen which is keen to outsource production, build hulls cheap and locally. I believe you've already got a modified Stan Patrol in quantity in the coast guard.

This concept dropped today. Probably too under-powered though.

File: 1376445244_xfy1_16.jpg (76KB, 977x719px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 977x719px

>>33936932
Wow.. Innovative drone design.

File: tern_phase3_1021.jpg (190KB, 1021x739px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1021x739px

>>33936932

Did you mean to have some witty retort? You think they claim the tailsitter drone concept as their own, or that it's even domestically built? Because what you're posting is not a drone, it's a manned craft. Regardless US navy, Darpa etc are also developing tailsitter drones again for use on navy vessels.

File: Type-26-frigate-deliver-punch-commensurate-with-price-tag.jpg (128KB, 1298x623px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1298x623px

>>33931012

Just buy our type 26's.

it would be nice for us to share.

>>33935735
Burger machine vs tea kettle

>>33932280
>>33935618
That's what I've been hoping for ever since I saw our company introduce their design based on it a few months ago. My 401k could use another boost.

>>33931849
>t. brit

>>33937211
It's obviously the same drone but with a RNLAF roundel on it. Stop sperging, kek

>>33931012
Write your congressman/woman. Defend the LCS

>>33931012
Lol people were defending the LCS so much the last 2 years

>>33937435

>Defend the LCS
I would rather not.

>>33937435

Yes defend the pork!

>>33937578
The LCS itself is fine. The issue is that it's not a purpose built frigate but Congress insists on making it into one.

>>33931012
Our fleet is like 5 different models of ship right now. Nimitz, Los Angeles, Perry, Burke, Ticonderoga.

Anything that adds diversity is probably good.

>>33939458
diverse ships, with diverse crews!

>>33939458
>Perry
What year is it, gramps? OHPs have been out of service since 2015.

>>33937578
These are not part of the LCS program, try to keep up and not embarrass yourself.

>>33939458
>Wasp, America, Ohio, Virginia, Independence, Freedom, San Antonio

etc etc etc

Theres literally zero reason why the ship needed to have such a high top speed or to be some small frigate

Instead it should have been a larger multi-purpose vessel like the Mistral, with a welldeck for carrying unmanned boats/subs
A flat top allows it to carry a couple F-35's to provide its own air defence/missile defense.

>>33939656
We already have LHAs and they're pretty shit at the whole "going into shallow water" and MCM roles.

>>33939672
With the proper equipment any ship could do MCM or ASW or anti-surface
There is nothing special about the LCS

Those roles are now done remotely via choppers & drones

Could just as easily be done by an LHD which stays out of harms way.

>>33931510

Why is there a buttplug on that ship?

File: SHIP_Mistral_Class_Cutaway_Francais_lg.gif (286KB, 1984x1147px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1984x1147px

>>33939656
is it that much better then a wasp?
and I heard future America classes will have a well deck

so merica kinda already has that right?

>>33939766
>using a 40k ton ship for MCM, ASW and littoral work when the USN doesn't want to dedicate 9-10k ton ships for those roles

>>33931012
Ford and Zumwalt are okay but these LCS have been a huge waste of time.

>>33940053
America class ships are 4 billion dollars each

They are far too expensive to be used as some auxiliary ship like the LCS will be.

>>33940398
what is the point of the America class?

>>33940413
So that Marines can have fun on a ship

>>33940094
So now you have an LCS doing it, which also needs a carrier battle group to provide it with cover

File: frigate Freedom class.jpg (461KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 2048x1365px

>>33931321
> Good American ship builders are arrogant union cunts.

This has nothing to do with the unions, they just build what their employer designs and all the problems stem from the corporations designing shitty products using substandard materials to rip off the American tax payer.

And what are you doing wasting time posting to /k/, shouldn't you be under your boss's desk sucking his cock for a $0.05 raise?...

>>33940453
>which also needs a carrier battle group to provide it with cover

No.

>>33940466

t. union

File: 1fd08d87162e22582ae8e3c22647c4c7_400x400.jpg (31KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x400px

>>33936932
> Czechoslovak navy

>>33940468
uh yes?
Where else would small boats, mines, or subs be, other than within range of land based weapons.

>>33940474

t. jobless teenager living in mom’s basement.

>>33940522
What land based weapons specifically require an entire CSG to counter but are in a place where a CSG would not already be.

File: f125.jpg (313KB, 1273x751px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1273x751px

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-security-frigates-idUKKBN188276
>Germany's much-delayed new frigates, built by ThyssenKrupp and Luerssen for at least 650 million euros (£551.4 million) apiece, are overweight and float with a persistent list to starboard, according to a confidential report seen by Reuters.

>>33941491
are the germans even allowed to have weapons like this?

>>33941491
> float with a persistent list to starboard
That's just embarrassing.

File: 5694.jpg (331KB, 1680x1194px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1680x1194px

bump

7,200 ton "frigate" not even close to an LCS size ship

>>33941880

AB3s weigh close to 10kT, I'm happy to call something around 7kT a heavy frigate.

>>33940522
LCS's are supposed to be used in areas of generally low intensity conflict. You don't need a goddamn carrier to snoop around for mines.

>>33941491
>built by ThyssenKrupp
>are overweight
Is anybody surprised? They're a company of mad scientists.

>>33940554

t. Greece.

File: Spagetti FREMM Best FREMM.jpg (592KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 1600x1071px

>>33941843

>French version

meh

>>33943074

>file name

File: TF4500.jpg (92KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 640x427px

looks sexy af

>>33941996
You do need a carrier to provide aerial radar coverage to spot incoming threats

File: USS Freedom.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>33940466

>>33945729

BRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPP

>>33941979
anything over 6 is a destroyer desu

>>33931012
Nothing wrong with buying foreign gear when your own gear can't cut the mustard.

The stupid decision would be refusing to buy foreign gear in such a situation.

>>33946397

Displacement doesn't dictate ship class and hasn't done in decades.

Role defines class now.

>>33946894
An irrelevant argument given the ships will be built in America.

>>33937144
It looks so silly

File: Tern.jpg (995KB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 3000x2400px

>>33937144
>>33947428

The USN is also reviving the concept, you realize.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/tailsitter-drone-tern-pilot-not-included/