Navy releases frigate RFI, long LCS nightmare will soon be over

>That 1980s design
>Christmas tree
>Slant launcher
>FF

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

YOU CANT BE SERIOUS, AMERICA

Should have bought chinese, at least their ships are ACTUAL modern.

>>34502783
>The RFI states the frigate should be able to conduct independent operations in a contested environment or contribute to a larger strike group, depending on combatant commander needs.
I too want WWII cruisers back.

All that time and money wasted when the US could have just build a frigate in the first place instead of this LCS gimmick.

>>34502783
Why don't we go to Europe, shop around for they designs they already have an are proven, customize it for the US Navy, then buy those. It would almost certainly be cheaper.
I get wanting to keep US jobs but when the shipyards literally have not conceptualized a single new design in years....

>>34502886
>>34503169

desu I don't even know why you're posting such obvious bait, like seriously you're not even trying

So we'll be having the; USA, UK, Australia, and Canada all possibly procuring new frigates at the same time. Though I suppose the USA's requirements are somewhat different.

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

52KB, 713x401px

>>34503365

Anglofrigate when? There's already a UK, Canadian and Aussie version of the same ship ready to go.

Can fit up to 32 Mk41 up front for all the US needs.

Around 6,900-8,000 tonnes by most up to date estimates depending on the fit and version. So it might be a tad big for this competition.

>>34502886
pictured ship is a half assed redesigned coast guard cutter that Huntington-Ingalls threw out there. probably not gonna make the cut DESU.
also:
>Should have bought chinese, at least their ships are ACTUAL modern

you mean one of the 8 modern destroyers they have in service right now? the ones almost entirely based on the AB designs?

>>34503049
>Why don't we go to Europe, shop around for they designs they already have an are proven

because, despite what Eurofags would like to believe, the US asks for a lot more out of their ships than other nations Navies do, so it's easier to build from the ground up than having to redesign a ship a half dozen times trying to make it tough enough to deal with that. the LCSs are the perfect example of that.

>>34503446

>because, despite what Eurofags would like to believe, the US asks for a lot more out of their ships than other nations Navies do, so it's easier to build from the ground up than having to redesign a ship a half dozen times trying to make it tough enough to deal with that. the LCSs are the perfect example of that.

And those differences are?

>ITT: People who seriously thought LCS was supposed to be a frigate.

>>34503472
>deployment timeframe
>distance traversed
>time spent at sea while not deployed
>minimum reliability requirements
>continuous operation in worse weather than most navies allow
>etc.

File: 1480504404019.jpg (26KB, 416x354px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 416x354px

>>34503400
>Anglofrigate
>Leaving us out of the party
I am angry.
ANGRY ABOUT ANZAC FRIGATES

>>34503502
I just want the LCS to be something of value. I don't give a fuck about an FF replacement, I just want those things to be something better than a 3,000 ton paperweight

>>34503521

And what makes you think many of the European designs don't have that? Which ones specifically don't have which required things?

>>34503540

If you guys wanna stump the cash I'm sure you can have some too.

>>34503446
>>34503521

Whilst the answer is already maybe already known.

I'd like you to find and compare the Key User Requirements of the RFI and European frigates. Then we'll be able to see the actual difference between them.

Given the RFI is supposed to be a patrol frigate and many European navies have frigates as their mainstay fighting ships - I'd say they'd have a one up on the RFI.

>>34503446
>because, despite what Eurofags would like to believe, the US asks for a lot more out of their ships than other nations Navies do, so it's easier to build from the ground up than having to redesign a ship a half dozen times trying to make it tough enough to deal with that. the LCSs are the perfect example of that.
But that's sorta the issue, we have all these requirements imposed by congressional meddling, and the ship proposals we get from the docks and companies meet literally none of them, at which point they try to weasel their way into a contract for 50 while promising to add on the systems that should be standard at a later date. Meanwhile, both Spain, Germany and Norway have vessels that specialize in ASW work while still maintaining a respectable surface and air warfare suite (Naval Strike Missile for Norway and aegis for both Spain and Norway) while compromising on nothing. All of this while coming in on budget and on schedule.

>>34503446
>the ones almost entirely based on the AB designs?
you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

>>34502783
how big is that compared to a burke?

>>34503599
they aren't built with the same operational requirements that the US has in mind.

specifically? France, UK, Spain, Germany, all of the Nordic countries.

>>34503677

And do you know what those operational requirements are?

I'm betting you don't, because that would require researching your opinion.

File: Type 054A.jpg (538KB, 1600x1188px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1600x1188px

>>34502783
should have just bought Chinese.

I won't mind a few Type54As for the coast guard and the Navy. Good enough to BTFO any Somalian and illegals, and cheap enough to deploy in low intensity theaters.

>>34503701
>buying equipment made by a non-friendly country

>>34502886
If you actually read the releases you'd know it's just a spec sheet of what the Navy wants and that photo is hardly relevant to the topic.

>>34503641
go ahead and tell me how the type 52Ds, being designed and built around the knockoff Aegis suite, aren't wannabe Burkes.

>>34503677

Would you care to actually back up any of that? What particular classes of ships do you mean? What exact things do those ships lack from that last you mentioned? Do you have any detailed sources on them lacking them or falling short of requirements?

It sounds a hell of a lot like you're trying to make some unsubstantiated bullshit up.

>>34503772
>being designed and built around the knockoff Aegis suite
why don't you differentiate passive vs active electronic scanning for me? Or is your whole argument based on the fact that both have 4 rectangular transceiver covers? Because if that's the case, are you going to tell me the Mars Passat is also an AEGIS copy?

>>34503718
hey man, maybe if you placed a big enough order, it'll make them friendly.

China is a frenemy. You know how many Boeings they buy from us?

>this retard Murikkkan desperately trying to defend the US military

face it, you're shit, Yurope and Russia >>>>> Amerifat

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

128KB, 1298x623px

>>34503400

I got you senpai

>>34502783
>no VLS

>>34503691
>>34503776
let me ask you three questions:

first, how long is the average naval deployment from your given country?

second, what is the average distance traversed during the aforementioned deployment?

third, how frequently do your respective ships enter a long term maintenance/repair period?

>>34502783
>>34502961
I don't understand. We already have a fuckton of air defense, and the LCS ships already contribute to ASW, picket and AShW (with LAMPS choppers). Why do we need this again?

File: cutlass.jpg (123KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1200x675px

>>34503701

type 31 looks better

>>34503823
Vatniks ain't even trying anymore. This isn't even bait, it's just insultingly low-test.

>>34503869

The burden of proof is on you as the one who is making the assertion. I've asked something very reasonable of you.

Compare the requirements of a European frigates and the RFI.

>>34503879
think with your head.

Burkes are too expensive to operate, LCS not showing its intended values, and the US having no desire to dial back its aggressiveness in foreign policy. The military, after all, is first and foremost, a policy tool.

>>34503888
too fat.

I guess the Americans would love that.

>>34503891
>Compare the requirements of a European frigates and the RFI.
that's way too much work for that fucking pissant. We both know that. Just play along with his "hurr 'murica stronk" antics and wait for heart failure. It's probably imminent.

>>34503893
>Burkes are too expensive to operate
Says who? And there's no fucking way a CSG or ESG will be leaving port without at least two Burkes and a Tico.

>LCS not showing its intended values
The USN needed an MCM, ASW and asymmetrical surface threat warship. That's exactly what they got. Almost a direct replacement/upgrade for the OHP and Avenger classes most importantly, for ASW and MCM.

>the US having no desire to dial back its aggressiveness in foreign policy
I wonder why everyone always pisses and moans about "US AGGRESSIVENESS" rather than, I dunno, Russian meddling, for instance. Russia, after all, has invaded two sovereign countries in the last decade, and for a hell of a lot less reason than the US went to Afghanistan.

>>34503917
>Says who?
says the US Congress. And the Navy.

>The USN needed an MCM, ASW and asymmetrical surface threat warship.
That's a funny way to say A MODERN FRIGATE.

>I wonder why everyone always pisses and moans about "US AGGRESSIVENESS" rather than, I dunno, Russian meddling, for instance.
Because unlike you, they're not retarded and they can process news AND have a long term memory.

US involvement in the middle east should have ended in 91.

>>34503917
btw, I just noticed that you're not only woefully out of your depth on this topic, you're ACTUALLY retarded.
>Says who? And there's no fucking way a CSG or ESG will be leaving port without at least two Burkes and a Tico.
Are you saying Burkes ONLY deploy with CSGs? Are you denying that Burkes don't run around solo?

Fuck man, I really feel bad for your mother not aborting you when she had the chance. Could have saved all of us a lot of trouble...and tax payer money.

>>34503809
>why don't you differentiate passive vs active electronic scanning for me

literally the only difference is a dedicated transmitter per array.

>Or is your whole argument based on the fact that both have 4 rectangular transceiver covers

S-band phased array radar that just happened to begin development around the time frame that public info about SPY became more readily available? yeah...

also, dragons eye has rectangular antennas, SPY has octagonal Antennas. neither is a transceiver.

>Because if that's the case, are you going to tell me the Mars Passat is also an AEGIS copy

actually that would be a SCANFAR knockoff, not that either actually worked.

>>34503869
>makes absurd claims
>asks others to give him the numbers to disprove him

As someone else said, I think you are forgetting that frigates are top of the line warships for most Yuro navies, thus they might actually have higher requirements than the USN has for their frigates. If you look at the RFI and the requirements for range and operational availability, this shows.

>>34504039
>transceiver
>>34503809
> transceiver covers


>literally the only difference is a dedicated transmitter per array.

>S-band phased array radar that just happened to begin development around the time frame that public info about SPY became more readily available? yeah...

you're confirmed to be retarded. Don't talk about radars again. retard.

>>34503891
>>34503904
alright, i'll give, I can't find the direct order operational requirements for European frigates (going with the type 26 and FREMM) and literally no info on deployment timeframes or maintenance availability.

the basis of my assertion was based entirely on reported deployment length and deployment location of vessels.

>>34504119
>transceiver covers

which is still not an antenna you mong

>you're confirmed to be retarded. Don't talk about radars again. retard.

says the guy who calls antennas transceiver covers and believes there is a difference beyond an interconnected vs. singular Tx/Rx path and hardware in a PESA vs. an AESA radar.

>>34503669
It'll probably end up at around 4000 tons, compared to a Burke's 10000.

>>34504044
so... does anyone have a link to a Yuro RFI for it's frigally wiggles?

>>34503948
>says the US Congress. And the Navy.
Find a single source from either claiming the Burke O&S costs are too high for intended operational envelope.

>That's a funny way to say A MODERN FRIGATE.
That means different things to different navies. For pretty much everyone NOT the USN, who doesn't have 84 total major surface air defense ships, you would have to include VLS air defense in that. For the USN, who does, it's not necessarily so. What the USN has been short on with the OHP retirement is LAMPS picket pads, ASW pickets and, with the retirement of the Avengers, MCM platforms (even before their retirement, the USN has been hurting for MCM since the early 90's).

>Because unlike you, they're not retarded and they can process news AND have a long term memory.
Interesting. So, even though both China and Russia have show far more aggression and expansionist tendencies over the last decade, the US is still somehow streamrolling the world. I see.

>US involvement in the middle east should have ended in 91.
Well, it just might have if the Taliban hadn't funded and facilitated 9/11 along with others. If those fuckers left us alone, we'd probably be just as happy buying their oil and driving our SUVs.

>Are you saying Burkes ONLY deploy with CSGs?
Nope. It's a simple fact that we could use more major surface combatants. I just don't see how the ships in OP have anything to do with the LCS program, which was how he framed it.

>>34504285
not with how things have been going in the world of ship design. hell the LCS were supposed to be like 200 feet shorter than they ended up, and the Zumwalt ended up 100 feet longer.

>>34504310
They ended up longer to achieve higher speeds at the same displacement and power. They didn't have the same block coefficient before and after.

>>34504285
>It'll probably end up at around 4000 tons
There's no way in hell they'll get strike length VLS cells in that hull in any kind of significant numbers. Looks like it'll be stuck with ESSM, and possibly SM-6 if they can cram Tactical cans in there.

>>34502783
couldn't we just beef up the Cyclones instead of adding another pointless patrol boat to the mix?

>>34504330
>this fucking moron again

You're talking COMPLETELY different ship displacement, weapons loadout and endurance classes.

>>34504292

Russia invading two sovereign countries is a bit rich, especially when in one of them the usa is directly aiding the forces opposed to the original sovereign government.

>>34504360
>the original sovereign government.
And there it is. You were the official government of those countries for only a small fraction of the total time those peoples have had an organized polity. Try again.

File: SHIP_CGC_NSC_Stratton_WMSL-752_Sea_Trials_HII_lg.jpg (268KB, 1097x768px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1097x768px

>>34502783
Its pretty much being built already.

>>34504326
>strike length VLS
It's supposed to be a modern OHP FF, not a strike ship.

File: themoreyouknow.gif (2MB, 478x354px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 478x354px

>>34504324
huh. as i understood it part of that was trying to cram new tech into the LCSs, i didn't know it was a max speed thing. i guess that makes sense.

still wish they could do something other than be glorified patrol craft.

>>34504420
>it was a max speed thing
I have a very strong suspicion that one of the guys setting the requirements for the LCS final draft was a speed demon AKA sanic autist. Look at the designed role and purpose, there's no real need to get 40+ knots out of the thing.

>>34504343
actually i'm talking about not adding another ship to the fleet to take on roles which are already covered.

>>34503573
>I just want the LCS to be something of value.

You are in luck then, because they are.

>>34503893
>LCS not showing its intended values

Actually they are, the problem is people want them to be a mini Burke.

>>34504449
>AKA sanic autist

wouldn't surprise me.

>Look at the designed role and purpose, there's no real need to get 40+ knots out of the thing.

eh, yes and no. higher speed can help you out in some ASW/patrol situations, and you could hypothetically use the "we need to get on station fast" line as an excuse, but I suspect you're right on the money, or there was some admiral behind the designers screaming "MAKE IT FASTER"

>>34504417
>It's supposed to be a modern OHP FF
The LCS is already that. The OHP was essentially irrelevant in the air defense role by about 1990. They removed the Mk 13s long before they decommissioned the last OHP.

After about 1990, the OHPs reverted to being ASW picket ships for the most part, with LAMPS choppers supporting OTH sensor/picket missions on surface targets.

>>34504420
>still wish they could do something other than be glorified patrol craft.
ASW and MCM are pretty damned important, anon.

Of the last 5 combat damaged ships (which covers everything back to but not including Vietnam), 3 were mine strikes. Another one was a VBIED, which is another LCS specialty. The LCS literally answers 4 of the 5 major combat damage incidents for the last 30 or so years.

>>34504459

>You are in luck then, because they are.

as in the steel is valuable? the electronics are probably pretty valuable too. maybe the PCMS?

>>34503948

just going to say that >>34504292 pretty much is kicking your ass

>>34504525
>ASW and MCM are pretty damned important, anon.

and yet they haven't proven to be better than minehunters and destroyers at the two tasks respectively.

>>34504526
I realize pretending to be stupid is easy but it is not an argument.

>>34504231
>believes there is a difference beyond an interconnected vs. singular Tx/Rx path and hardware in a PESA vs. an AESA radar.
yeah, there is
beam agility
hardware redundancy (what are you gonna do when your traveling wave tube is hit with shrapnel?)
power efficiency
peak transmit power

If you think AESA and PESA are functionally the same thing and you don't realize the economy of scale needed to build AESA T/R modules, you're a fucking retard, which is precisely my previous prognosis.

>>34504559
>and yet they haven't proven to be better than minehunters
Well, considering we had to use an LPH (USS Tripoli) as an MCM command ship during Desert Storm, and managed to get a school-bus sized hole blown in her bow (plus the Tico who was escorting her, USS Princeton, got thwacked too), I'd say it's hard to say they'll be a bigger asset risk than what we were using before. There were NEVER enough Avengers to go around, and Congress wouldn't buy any more because they're idiots/MCM isn't sexy enough for the taxpayers.

>and destroyers
Of all the combat ships in the fleet, Burkes are probably only better than a Nimitz or Tico in prosecuting ASW. SSNs and smaller, faster ASW picket ships are always the ideal platform, period, end of story. If you're screening for a CSG doing 22+ knots and you can't hit 30+ knots in a sprint and drift profile, you're worthless for prosecuting and screening in ASW. Furthermore, what the fuck do you think those comparatively massive aviation facilities on the LCS ships are for if not primarily ASW?

There's literally no other ship the LCS' size in the world who is better set up for ASW work. Fast + massive aviation facilities + towed array on a 3.5kton hull = ASW superstar

>>34504292
>Find a single source from either claiming the Burke O&S costs are too high for intended operational envelope.
why the fuck do you think they came out with this frigate tender? It's all about COST.

>>34504645
Burke IIAs don't even have towed arrays.

>>34504292
>So, even though both China and Russia have show far more aggression and expansionist tendencies over the last decade
last time I checked, the US has dropped more bombs on more countries than anyone else in the 21st century.

Keep drinking that freedumb koolaid.

What does the Navy even do anyway lol? There hasn't been a Naval Battle since WWII. What a waste of money. We should scrap the Navy and use the money to expand the Marines!

>>34502783
so the Navy literally abandoned further LCS programs?

>>34504504
>The OHP was essentially irrelevant in the air defense role by about 1990.
This was mostly due to the old technology aboard, the high cost of upgrading the fleet, and the collapse of the USSR negating the air threat while the peace dividend slashed budgets across the board, not a doctrinal change rendering them irrelevant. Hence, a *modern* one. The OHPs were in service from 77, and it was a while before they were deemed obsolete for AAW. A modern one, with a simpler AEGIS derivative and VLS instead of a single-arm launcher, would make it relevant, allowing the radar picket to defend itself and cause attrition, while at the same time remaining a viable ASW platform.

>>34504639
>beam agility

the difference in beam agility in modern PESA radars is indistinguishable from AESA radars, SPY-1D(V) and D with baseline 9 are examples of this.

>hardware redundancy (what are you gonna do when your traveling wave tube is hit with shrapnel?)

replace it. if you take a center deckhouse hit you've got way worse problems than a punctured TWT. also how weak do you think TWTs are? also, hate to point this out, but you can have a PESA radar with solid state amplifiers.

>power efficiency

again, you can build a PESA radar with SSAs.

>peak transmit power

really? and how exactly, do current AESA radars offer better peak transmit power than current PESA radars?

>economy of scale needed to build AESA T/R modules

essentially what your argument comes down to is hardware differences between modern PESA and AESA radar. that's not the fucking same as the difference between a PESA and an AESA radar. I shouldn't be surprised you can't make that distinction considering that you probably can't breath and type at the same time.

>>34504668
yes they do. they've had MFTA arrays for a few years now.

>>34504673
>last time I checked, the US has dropped more bombs on more countries than anyone else in the 21st century.
But Soviet weapons have been sold to much, much more of the world and their small arms fueled small wars for the entire 20th century.

If you want to make this a "who spread more misery" contest, the US won't come out looking awesome, but I promise the Soviets/Russians will come out just as if not more dirty.

>>34504678
>There hasn't been a Naval Battle since WWII.
Preying Mantis, and then the great deception of the Amphibious invasion during Desert Storm.

>>34504733
>and it was a while before they were deemed obsolete for AAW
The first VLS Ticos were commissioned in 1986. So the OHP was reasonably decent AA tech for 9 years, when it was supposed to serve for 30+. People also forget that the OHP was INCREDIBLY expensive and over-budget compared to what it was supposed to be.

>>34504417
OHP FF had respectable range of air defense for its time. Need to scare those Tu-95 off. Same ideas stand today.

>>34504887
>the difference in beam agility in modern PESA radars is indistinguishable from AESA radars, SPY-1D(V) and D with baseline 9 are examples of this.
You're a dumb fucking shit.

>replace it. if you take a center deckhouse hit you've got way worse problems than a punctured TWT
you're so fucking dumb...so dumb.

>again, you can build a PESA radar with SSAs.
yep, u dumb as FUCK. A single large SS Amp vs thousands of individual toggleble T/R. Which has more power efficiency? Did you even get your GED? Do you understand the engineering definition of granular states?

>really? and how exactly, do current AESA radars offer better peak transmit power than current PESA radars?

Limitations of large single amplifiers? Hello? Have you ever taken a grad level power electronics course? Do you understand what duty cycle is? Do you even fucking know how a fucking wave is CONSTRUCTED?

>essentially what your argument comes down to is hardware differences between modern PESA and AESA radar. that's not the fucking same as the difference between a PESA and an AESA radar.
you have SEVERE reading comprehension problems, not to mention a fatal case of retardation.

Look, it's very simple. If PESA is as capabable as AESA, why is the AMDR moving to AESA? It's a rhetorical question for me, but it's clearly not for you, so why don't you stop shitposting and education yourself?

Here is some good open source material.

https://www.scribd.com/document/100841613/Aesa-vs-Pesa

Do us all a favor and take the time to READ it, then maybe finally get your fucking GED.

>>34504887
please answer this question
>34505143
>Look, it's very simple. If PESA is as capabable as AESA, why is the AMDR moving to AESA?

>>34504500

The 40+ knot requirement is a vestigial remnant of the "streetfighter" concept which was intended for a much smaller sort of ship.

>>34505143
>You're a dumb fucking shit.

solid argument. tell me, how much of a difference does less than a 1/10 of a second make when tracking anything other than a hypersonic track?

>you're so fucking dumb...so dumb.

you're the one who doesn't understand shipboard damage control and the effect of explosive force on electrical components.

>A single large SS Amp

never said you'd use a single step up amplifier, but we've already established your issue with reading comprehension.

>Limitations of large single amplifiers? Hello?

again, you don't use a single amplifier. also, name one shipboard AESA radar with a power output that even come CLOSE to that of SPY.

> If PESA is as capabable as AESA, why is the AMDR moving to AESA

because AESA radars can transmit in multiple frequencies at the same time, depending on transceiver configuration. additionally, SSAs tend to have a longer operational life than tubes do, and the modules are easier to change out than tubes which tie directly into waveguide. but again, that's a hardware difference.

>>34504701
The navy is doing what it has planned to do for a long time. Build 26 LCS (9 are in service and 13 are under construction currently) then build beefed up 'patrol frigates', of which there are ~4 available designs to choose from.

>>34505476
oooh. okay, so that makes sense. I'd still like to think that there was an admiral during the design phase for this who was just doing some kinda Ricky Bobby thing with it. thats just me though.

>>34505086
That's still not really anything. We don't need a Navy anymore, or a large standing Army for that matter. Nobody wants to actually have a full scale war in the 21st century. We should reduce our military forces to specialist teams and then hide behind our curtain of nuclear weapons.

>>34505143
>scribd

Kek next time you'll be pointing to resources in facebook.

>>34505772
I love it when Vatniks LARP as "concerned citizens" to tell us that we need to weaken ourselves because we really don't need any of those scary military toys, really, we don't.

>>34505772
That idea was tried and failed in Korea, Vietnam, and several other occasions. The problem with that is that it greatly limits your flexibility- your options are confined to 'extremely small scale fighting' and 'total annihilation'. This renders you vulnerable to 'creeping aggression'- a series of actions, each too minor to justify a full scale response, but which eat away at your credibility and strategic position. In Korea, for example, the US was unwilling to commit to nuxlear warfare, and was thus forced to fight a ground war for ehich they were ill-prepared. There's a reason the strategy of 'Overwhelming force' was replaced by 'Flexible Response'.

Wars in the 21st century don't happen due to deterrent capability, nothing else. And a deterrent doesn't work if the opponent doubts your willingness to use it. Which is why you need several of them, on different levels.
Wars like the Gulf War could never have been fought successfully without a strong conventional force.

>>34505772
>That's still not really anything. We don't need a Navy anymore, or a large standing Army for that matter. Nobody wants to actually have a full scale war in the 21st century.
Said the Visigoth to the Roman.

>>34505911
Beat me to it.

>>34505844
that's a LockMart external presentation. Read it.

>>34506022
you mean that company that's currently selling a fancy dancy AESA radar? and at that time was trying to get the government to buy into that same radar?

>>34502783
kek then why did they build, not one but 2 LCS classes in the first place?
what a waste of money

>>34502886
>Slant launcher
This, why exactly do we need quad harpoon boxes? I thought the Navy was moving away from Harpoon to more advanced things.

For the record I'm not opposed to a Non-VLS launch platform, it's actually a good idea to have one that can be reloaded underway (even if by crew/machine and not an autoloader) that can fire AShM's, Cruise missiles, SAM's and all the other shit VLS does.

As a backup, mainly because VLS can't be reloaded underway, and even when the Navy get's around to it it will require another ship with cranes and calm seas to pull it off


As for a new frigate, we should probably just fucking buy what the Royal Navy is buying - the Type 26/31 GCS Frigates from BAe and save on development (and purchase) costs. It would also be a good thing for the RN cause if can cut their dev costs and because quite frankly it's a fucking frigate, it's a multipurpose escort ship and we're a Destroyer and Cruiser heavy navy anyway, we don't need a long drawn out process to design and buy a fucking ship, esp. when BAe makes enough of our shit as it is.

But of course that shit won't fucking happen, tax payer money will be pissed down the fucking drain unnecessarily when several of our allies make cheaper and capable platforms.

As for the LCS? It's a mish mash of a Corvette and an Offshore Patrol Vessel, the navy should have just mounted some VLS to the Coast Guard's Legend/National Security class Cutter and called it a fucking day, instead of making a multibillion dollar piece of shit Ocean going Corvette

>>34504504
The LCS is a fucking Corvette/OPV and the VLS modules on it aren't the same as on a DDG/FFG

>>34503400
why only 32 for that size?

>>34506137

Because it is an anti-submarine destroyer. Air defense is a secondary priority.

>>34506089
Turns out the NSC/Legend Class Cutter is basically in the Frigate weight/length range.
How much VLS could we stick on one?

>>34505744
>name one shipboard AESA radar with a power output that even come CLOSE to that of SPY.
it doesn't need to have base peak power in the MW range if the duty cycle is higher. You know, the whole POWER EFFICIENCY thing.

Your original statement is that aside from digital beam forming and simultaneous T/R (two topics we didn't discuss), PESA and AESA performance are more or less the same. So why did the Chinese decide on an AESA arrangement (even when they had access to RIF)?
Why is the EMPAR upgrade path also an AESA?
Why is SAMPSON an AESA?
Everyone is switching to AESA and yet you claim there is no functional difference.

>>34506133
>Corvette/OPV
Name a single one of these with the same capacity aviation facilities and a fucking towed SONAR array.

>>34506065
presentation was from 2009, dipshit. Why don't you stop being a dumb cunt and actually learn a thing or two about the shit you shitpost on.

Fucking retard...

>>34506137
>why only 32 for that size?
And not strike length to boot.

>>34506189
>How much VLS could we stick on one?
Not many. Also, remember that not all VLS is created equal - the smallest length can pretty much only fit ESSM.

>>34506181
It's a multipurpose and the design can be easily refined for more VLS.
This or a militarized NSC would be the most economic options for the US Navy, I would personally like us to have the Anglofrigate as well, but knowing the fucking Navy, they'll design some overly expensive shitfrigate with a program cost 3x that of the GCS Anglofrigate and a unit cost twice that, and then after they make 20+ of them they'll still have understaffed/crewing issues because hurr durr 10+ carrier navy

>>34506229
>actually learn a thing or two about the shit you shitpost on.
He's not here to learn. He's here to shake his tiny epeen at the heavens in impotent rage.

>>34506252
The NSC has a pretty big flight deck for a ship that size, couldn't we in theory mount some VLS on the flight deck?
You are probably right though, the main gun mounting is pretty far back, it would mean redesigning the entire front of the ship to accomodate VLS

>>34506257

Anything is "multipurpose" if you're willing to define it as such. It doesn't change the fact that the design has a focus on ASW. Just like the Type 45 design is focused on AAW while also having other capabilities. The Type 26 is the Udaloy to the Type 45's Sovremennyy.

>>34506284
>couldn't we in theory mount some VLS on the flight deck?
Underneath the flight deck is rudder machinery, plus the shaft locks and turbines further forward. Not to mention that whole issue of putting very high energy moving objects full of flammables and ordinance above basically a huge series of bombs. Not really a good idea, even if there was depth enough for the cells (there isn't).

>>34506207
>it doesn't need to have base peak power in the MW range if the duty cycle is higher

which leaves you more susceptible to several types of jamming. additionally, with the publicly available info it still doesn't look like any of the AESA radars available come close to the max search range of SPY.

>Everyone is switching to AESA and yet you claim there is no functional difference.

there are several smaller reasons, but here's the 2 main reasons:
1. they're cheaper in the long run. it's cheaper to buy x number of solid state TRMs and replace them as they entropy as opposed to having to frequently change out the tubes or usually associated with PESA radars. and I'll give you that, microwave tubes are ridiculously expensive and nowhere near as reliable as SSAs.
2. ease of maintenance. replacing damaged TRMs is a lot easier than constantly maintaining/aligning/repairing current PESA radars microwave components. additionally, if you take a hit with a PESA radar, you have to verify the integrity of the every waveguide assembly, whereas with an AESA radar, it's just the individual arrays.

>yet you claim there is no functional difference.

I never said that. I said the difference is a central RF path for all arrays vs. individual RF paths for arrays, and that all other differences come down to hardware.

>>34506074
How is it a waste when the frigate is separate from the 26 LCS being built?

File: slavcano.jpg (63KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x848px

>>34506181
is there room for extra cells later?

>>34506419
>with the publicly available info it still doesn't look like any of the AESA radars available come close to the max search range of SPY.

wait, I was wrong, I misread the SAMPSON search range. my bad.

File: SPS_Alvaro_de_Bazán_(F101).jpg (2MB, 2048x1326px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1326px

The F100 family is almost certainly going to be the winner, they already use Aegis and SPY radars.

File: wthh.jpg (42KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 550x550px

>>34506556
why would they want an old shitty baby burke?

>>34506224
What are you fucking kidding a Steregushchiy/ Gremyashchiy carries a KA-27 and has towed Active/Passive.
Same with the Chink Type 056.
Both are ocean going corvettes, both have legit AShM's, the Russian ones have VLS, the Chinks cheaped out on theirs and use box launchers mostly
And the Swedish Visby's (I don't think they have a hangar though but they have a deck)

The big ass flight deck on the Independence Class is great and all, but it still just carries one SH-60 in the hangar, along with a drone.

Again to the point though we don't have a defensive oriented navy so what was the point in making a (large) ocean going multipurpose corvette when a larger frigate with a shallow draft could have filled the same role. It's not like we're going to be sending the LCS up rivers.

If the navy needed a corvette it should have cooperated with the Coast Guard and ironed out a cost effective modular multipurpose corvette/OPV design instead of the fucking nightmare LCS acquisition was.

It's not even a proper fucking escort ship, the navy blew billions on a program that doesn't really fit our established doctrine, did so without the input from the coast guard, who's entire fucking job is littoral, and basically pissed tax payer money down the drain on useless shit when a shitton of our allies make capable multipurpose Corvettes and OPV's.

Fuck everyone who tries to justify the retardation of the LCS

>>34506556
I'm not sure the USN will be super interested in an FFG that weighs and costs 60% what a full blown Burke does. I'm thinking they're going to be looking for something 5,000 tons or smaller, less than 1B dollars and with 1 LAMPS III + an extra slot for another chopper or pair of drones for aviation facilities. The F100 family only has facilities for a single LAMPS III bird.

>>34506425
>LCS
>built 2 classes doing exactly same missions
waste of money for sure

by the way
>new proposed frigate
>unmanned system, aviation facility were mentioned, meaning it can perform MCM, ASW, maritime patrol just like LCS
> by utilizing off the shelf weapon systems, survivability is enhanced, has better ASuW, AA capability which are drawbacks of LCS
LCS is failure

>>34506618
They're great little ships for navies that don't have major air defense ships. For the USN, the fit doesn't seem quite right. Almost too much bang and cost for the slot they're trying to fill, with undersized aviation facilities compared to what the USN likes.

>>34506662
>>unmanned system, aviation facility were mentioned, meaning it can perform MCM, ASW, maritime patrol just like LCS
Without a good sprint capability and a towed sonar array (unlikely on a VLS FFG unless they're planning on building a big ass FFG), it'll still be inferior to either LCS hull in ASW. Still good, and useful as a picket, but not an ASW hunting dog like the LCS will be.

File: fridtjof_nansen_class.jpg (167KB, 1920x840px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1920x840px

>>34506618
>why would they want something that fits the RFI perfectly

>>34506556
F100, F105, BAe GCS, and the Fridtjof Nansen Class are all good off the shelf options. Problem is you and I know the Navy would rather drop billions on a new Frigate program than do something rational, just like with LCS

>>34506618
well it's a Spanish ship, so I assume it comes with cocaine and hookers.

>>34506650
>same capacity aviation facilities

Those do not.

>>34506651
Economy of scale is a large factor in purchasing a shitton of say F-100/F-105/GCS/Fridtjof Nansen.
If the Navy wanted 20+ FFG's with options for further orders you can bet your ass that number would drop to sub 800mil.
There is also the fact that alot of the tech on those ships are American in the first place, sold at export pricing

>>34506707
I expect the NSC patrol frigate to win if it can fit the desired armament.

>>34506662
>two variants of the LCS were made so both shipyards would be kept busy
>new frigate will lack the facilities that allow LCS to perform duties like MCM
>LCS is a failure because of this

This is called advocacy bias, you are blind to anything that does not support your views.

>>34506650
>What are you fucking kidding a Steregushchiy/ Gremyashchiy carries a KA-27 and has towed Active/Passive.
>Same with the Chink Type 056.
Steregushchiy/Gremyashchiy - very short towed array, a single KA-27 VS one of the longest towed arrays in service on a surface ship and one LAMPS III plus two MQ-8B Fire Scouts.

Type 056 - no one knows for sure what they're using for a towed array, but it doesn't have the displacement or volume to be carrying anything long enough to get under the thermocline much less be counted as a serious long range towed system with decent triangulation, with a pad but no hangar for a single medium lift chopper VS one of the longest towed arrays in service on a surface ship and one LAMPS III plus two MQ-8B Fire Scouts.

Neither of them have aviation facilities half as extensive as the ones on an LCS. Either LCS can lily pad an Osprey, for Christ sake.

>both have legit AShM's
Which the USN doesn't need on the LCS, because carriers and SSNs. Also, three total rotary wing assets, any one of which can do OTH ASh work.

>If the navy needed a corvette it should have cooperated with the Coast Guard and ironed out a cost effective modular multipurpose corvette/OPV design instead of the fucking nightmare LCS acquisition was.
Remember: ASW and MCM, neither of which Congress was interested in funding unless the USN did some tap dancing on the getting to know you phase of the procurement. What the USN was desperately in need of was ASW picket hulls and MCM hulls. Period. Everything else is secondary.

>It's not even a proper fucking escort ship
Against what? It's a fantastic ASW picket. Are you really suggesting we need MORE fleet air defense?

>>34506618
Because it can be had for less than half the price of a Burke because economy of scale, and because the idea of a largely automated FFG with 100 or less crew.
The Nansen's complement is 120, the Navy can get that down to below 100 and churn out a cheap and extremely capable multipurpose escort

>>34506707
LCS was a good idea on paper -tool out your ship with whatever equipment needed for it to fulfill a distinct role as needed. The problem was that it really only needed to fulfill one particular role ; anti sub

>>34506755
>If the Navy wanted 20+ FFG's with options for further orders you can bet your ass that number would drop to sub 800mil.
The number of 1.1B dollars for a 6,300ton air defense multi-purpose FFG is already pretty damn good. I don't see that dropping much, as it is pretty much right in line with the price/displacement ratio of the Burke.

There's also the small issue that building ships is almost as much about maintaining strategic military shipyard personnel and capability in the US as it is about getting the USN more hulls. Any deal would see the majority of the hulls built in a US shipyard.

>>34506798
>two variants of the LCS, total of 26ships
>versus
>one variants of the LCS, total of 26ships

in weapon procurement, have heard of economy of scale?

>new frigate will lack the facilities that allows LCS to perform duties like MCM
read the post again faggot

>>34506802
>Because it can be had for less than half the price of a Burke because economy of scale
Still very doubtful of this. 1.1B is the last confirmed price, from almost 6 years ago.

>because the idea of a largely automated FFG with 100 or less crew.
The F100 family requires 250+ crew. It is not O&S/manning friendly. A Burke, by contrast, is half again as big and requires 276 crew.

>>34506828
An F100 variant would likely be built at Bath Iron Works in Maine.

>>34506858
>read the post again faggot
Where is the mission bay for an unmanned MCM drone in the new requirements, then?

>>34506883
Isn't Bath going to be socked in with Burke Flt II restart/Flt III orders for the foreseeable future while the last Zumwalts are completed and after?

>>34506872
>1.1B is the last confirmed price, from almost 6 years ago.

From a 5 ship run full of things that inflated the price.

>The F100 family requires 250+ crew.

False.

Where are the ARMORED ships for contested waters?
Contested means you are being shot at, means you WILL be hit at some point.

Armor has come a long way since WW2, and we would want something closer to a coastal monitor rather than a battleship.

>>34506801
LCS did have a lot of stupid stuff going on, all the modules had to be cut b ack because none of the technology stuff they wanted worked.
The 2 hulls were an issue, once was space limited the other weight limited.

>>34503701
This.

054A is the perfect frigate platform.

All those eurofrigates are just overweight and underarmed destroyers. But the 4k ton 054A hits a sweet spot.

>>34506905
>False.
Please provide a source otherwise, then. Everything I see says 250 crew with 48 officers.

>>34506801
We need to make smarter acquisition choices, the LCS was a clear cut fucking disaster, as for a V-22, what the fuck do we have San Antonio Class LPD's, Whitbey Island and Harpers Ferry Class LSD's , Wasp Class LHD's and America Slass LHA's for?

It's fucking redundant.

The navy has little need for a corvette, the Coast Guard has need for a corvette, why the fuck did Congress let the navy build a corvette on it's own when the Coasties still has older Hamilton, Reliant, etc cutters in service.
They could have shared a fucking common hull/superstructure.

Instead we have this fucking monstrosity of two corvette classes that cost twice the cost annually that it cost to operate a Perry for fucks sake despite the savings in crew complement.

No we don't need more Fleet Air Defense, we need more Fleet common sense

>>34506801
056A also carries a VDS.

I would say that these small boats have a unusually decent ASW suite.

>>34506906
>Where are the ARMORED ships for contested waters?
This faggot again. Goddamnit.

>>34506858
>in weapon procurement, have heard of economy of scale?

Building 26 of one design in two shipyards would not scale like you want to think it does.

>>34506888
I said "unmanned system, aviation facility were mentioned, meaning it can perform MCM, ASW, maritime patrol just like LCS"
and RFI said "relieve large surface combatants from stressing routine duties during operations other than war."

I pointed out the possibility of the frigate having MCM capability pal

it's just the RFI and actual design hasn't been considered yet.

>>34506909
>only hangar space for one bird
>only 27 knots
Good luck using those for a CSG picket, China.

>>34506946
Prove me wrong
Fact: You can't

>>34506872
Fridtjof Nansen is F100 based and extensively modified and has half the crew requirement, it would be the logical choice, F100 is 6+ years old at this point
Australia is building a small destroyer based off the F100 - the F105
There's also Germany's planned F125 Frigate as an option.

Fridtjof Nansen's would be perfect, the crewing required for a F100 makes it obsolete in it's current form.
Why not take an adapted/modified one and modify it further?

>>34506932
>Everything I see says 250 crew with 48 officers.

Meaning wikipedia? Let me spoonfeed you more then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen-class_frigate

>>34506935
>as for a V-22, what the fuck do we have San Antonio Class LPD's, Whitbey Island and Harpers Ferry Class LSD's , Wasp Class LHD's and America Slass LHA's for?
I take it no one pointed out to you the value of having:
>capacity for the USN's soon to be primary air UNREP aircraft on every major combatant of the fleet
>the ability for a VLO ship to stand inshore and act as a refueling point for Ospreys performing a deep insertion inland
just to name two conspicuous tactical and logistical advantages

>the Coast Guard has need for a corvette
No argument. But getting Congress to pull their heads out of their asses and actually fund a dozen new corvettes for the Coast Guard? Good fucking luck.

>Instead we have this fucking monstrosity of two corvette classes that cost twice the cost annually that it cost to operate a Perry
I'd love to see an actual source with real numbers on this. I suspect someone's using early service numbers to push a point.

>>34506977
Literally every time you make your retarded argument for armored ships in a /k/ thread you get curbstompted. We've all seen it. At this point there is ZERO fucking point in repeating the performance, as you never learn a single fucking thing from it.

>>34506949
>spending taxpayers' money on funding two enterprises in weapon design, procurement when you can pick one, have 26 ships anyway

>>34506959
Inserting words into the RFI is not proofs.

>>34506959
>I pointed out the possibility of the frigate having MCM capability pal
Everything with LAMPS III aviation facilities can perform MCM to an extent, junior. However, that does NOT mean it can perform it like the LCS fitted out for MCM duties.

The LCS, for one, has a lower ferrous content hull, and more importantly has unmanned underwater drones for mine deactivation and/or recovery, facilities equal to or better than the Avenger class MCM ships. OP's FFG will most certainly not.

>>34507028
You "We don't need armor" sorts are the same ones who wanted to convert the whole US army fleet of vehicles to 20 ton wheeled APC's.

>>34507012
The V-22 will not be the primary unrep aircraft, because it is totally unsuitable for that.
Not can the V-22 launch vertically off the back of a ship fully loaded.

>>34507029
>spending taxpayer money to keep two shipyards healthy, get 26 ships anyway

There are 13 under construction right now, you cannot get much more economy of scale than that.

>>34507033
>inserting word into RFI
no

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cdf24447b8015337e910d330a87518c6&tab=core&_cview=0

just
READ
E
A
D

>>34506932
There are several fucking ship classes based on F100 (w AEGIS) ffs, one of them is the Fridtjof Nansen Class and it's complement is 120.
The F105 (Aussie Hobart Class) is a small Destroyer - a lengthened F100, and it crews 186.

As for why the Spanish F100 has so much crew - it's older by about a decade, and they likely carry extra personnel like a VBSS team - because small navy

>>34507048
The argument to prove isn't "we don't need armor", it is "we need thick armor".

>>34502783
Has America tried?

You know, to buy Chinese?

>>34507009
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen-class_frigate
Yes, that's a very heavily modified F100 with a compliment of 120 (not 100). It's also slower (and much slower than USN requirements which are 30+ knots for anything expected to perform CSG escort duty) than even an F100. And, once again, it still only has hangar space for a single chopper.

>>34507053
Since you also read the RFI, quote where it requires the frigate to be able to do more than the token MCM that any ship with a helicopter can.

>>34507048
>The V-22 will not be the primary unrep aircraft, because it is totally unsuitable for that.
https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/16/v-22-cod-c-2-navy-replacement/21831543/
>Report: V-22 Osprey to take over carrier deliveries
You're a retard who cannot even google, apparently.

>Not can the V-22 launch vertically off the back of a ship fully loaded.
No, but it can land vertically with a significant load. Why would it need to take off fully loaded from the ships it's delivering supplies to?

>>34507092
Look at those goalposts move.

>>34507051
yeah, you will get better economy of scale, when same 26 ships are under construction

and don't forget maintenance, repair and possible modernization
USN again has to spend money respectively because they have 2 classes.

>>34507132
see >>34506651, which was my first response to the F100 suggestion. In some ways, it's more bang and more buck than the USN needs (displacement, cost, total VLS cells), and in others it doesn't have enough (speed, aviation).

They're great ships, but there's no way they're going to be the right fit for a navy that already has 84 major multi-purpose surface combatants.

>>34507012
>No argument. But getting Congress to pull their heads out of their asses and actually fund a dozen new corvettes for the Coast Guard? Good fucking luck.

They only got the NCS/Legend class thanks to 9/11, but besides the point it was seriously irresponsible for the Navy to go it's own on LCS when Coast Guard involvement would have resulted in a significantly cheaper yet still capable modular design by necessity.
What's even worse is when the Navy inevitably builds too many LCS (what was the requirement 20?) and then gets budget cuts and now they'll have a ship they'll have to lease to the Coast Guard anyway - because it's basically fucking niche to the Navy's overall mission.
Then the Coast Guard will have to contend with a poorly thought out LCS that costs at least 3x as much to operate as a NSC/Legend Class Cutter, so it will sit in port collecting rust because the Navy acquisition is fucking dumb

>>34507116
"allow for independent operations in a contested environment"
"Table 2: Notional Major Weapons Systems"

>>34507140
If both shipyards are working at full capacity then the difference in economy of scale is less than the cost of revamping one shipyard to make the others design.

>>34507175
Which is not MCM, congratulations.

>>34507172
Tell us more about your fantasy world.

>>34507172
>when Coast Guard involvement would have resulted in a significantly cheaper yet still capable modular design by necessity.
How? Where the hell were they getting the budget for this? At the end of the day, Congress would still have to authorize the funds for what would be very large USCG assets.

>What's even worse is when the Navy inevitably builds too many LCS (what was the requirement 20?) and then gets budget cuts and now they'll have a ship they'll have to lease to the Coast Guard anyway - because it's basically fucking niche to the Navy's overall mission.
That's what we call "backdooring the real needs into the budget". If the USN really built "too many" (very doubtful, considering their thirst for MCM and ASW hulls), then loaning them to an extremely cash strapped and overworked USCG only makes good budgetary sense.

>>34507172
>Then the Coast Guard will have to contend with a poorly thought out LCS that costs at least 3x as much to operate as a NSC/Legend Class Cutter
Considering the fact that the NSC class cutters cost almost twice as much as an LCS to build, I'm wondering where you get they're 1/3 the cost to operate, even with similar crew requirements. I'll buy that both LCS hulls are more expensive to operate by maybe up to 50%, but 300% just seems ludicrous. Provide a source, please.

>>34507216

please READ
>>34506959
dumb faggot

no one knows the design

>>34506960
they got subs for that. 054A is to slap down all the uppiddy SEA trash.

also
>The follow-on version of the frigate, the Type 054B, will be fitted with a full electric propulsion system.[1]

>>34507247
>claim the frigate will be able to do the same MCM work as an LCS
>get BTFO
>cry about this being a waste of time

>>34507012
>the ability for a VLO ship to stand inshore and act as a refueling point for Ospreys performing a deep insertion inland

Besides the numerous ships that can fulfill this role, wouldn't we have land based FARP's and aerial refueling anyway? Your really grasping at straws here

>I'd love to see an actual source with real numbers on this. I suspect someone's using early service numbers to push a point.

Numbers at launch were $79 mil compared to $54 mil for a modified Perry, annually, according to wiki.

It's probably dropped quite a bit, but I have no doubt it's still at, above or near frigate operating costs -see below

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-06/pentagon-blocks-littoral-combat-ship-overrun-from-a-gao-report

>>34507279
wrote again
>>>34507270

yeah, it's really a waste of time
you autistic retard

>>34505761
That's... not too far from the truth, actually.

It's a long, very sordid story that's hard to summarize without losing the idiocy that made Pentagon Wars look almost realistic. It boils down to GottaGoFast wrecking the designs to get from 35kts on a displacement hull up to 40-50kts on a shallow-water hull. The price that had to be paid for that speed and draft ruined the program from the outset.

>>34507092
Yeah like it couldn't achieve 30knots, we want the hull , superstructure and overall design and layout, we'll be building the damned thing mostly in the US anyway with our own engines instead of COTS euroshit ones

>>34507163
There are alot of people in the Navy who remember the Perry's fondly, I mean we made what over 60 of the damned things, and they did their job because their are other missions besides escorting CBG's that a FFG is cost effective for

>>34507285
>Besides the numerous ships that can fulfill this role
What other surface ships aside from a Zumwalt (with twice the draft) are both VLO and have these aviation facilities? The LCS hulls are literally the only ones.

>wouldn't we have land based FARP's and aerial refueling anyway
Not if they're kicking the door down on an invasion, like Afghanistan, or doing an inland kill mission/recon/infil/exfil operation, or any number of other reasons. The whole point is to come from a direction no one expects you to, from well outside your supposed flight radius.

>aerial refueling anyway
Because nothing says "don't mind us" like flying around at 20,000ft just outside territorial borders with a tanker having the RCS of Rosie O'Donnell wrapped in aluminum foil.

>Numbers at launch were $79 mil compared to $54 mil for a modified Perry, annually, according to wiki.
Where? Can't find that. Also, did it factor for inflation?

>It's probably dropped quite a bit, but I have no doubt it's still at, above or near frigate operating costs
You do realize the LCS hulls are very close to the same displacement as the OHP hulls, right? The Independence class is exactly the same displacement, in fact.

>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-06/pentagon-blocks-littoral-combat-ship-overrun-from-a-gao-report
There aren't any actual cost numbers that I can find in that link. It just says the DoD heavily redacted certain details from the GAO report which it deemed sensitive information concerning operational readiness and posture.

>>34507086
It's "We need armor proof against existing threats"
Same as all other armor design

Something very much achievable.

>>34503472
>And those differences are?

greater profits for the US Military-industrial corporations.

>>34507363
>There are alot of people in the Navy who remember the Perry's fondly
This is why I'm baffled over the LCS hate. The OHP ships were monstrously over budget, and spent half their service lives mostly responsible for ASW picket work, which they excelled at. They were good little ships, but they were also costly at the time. Now along comes the LCS, which in both forms does everything a Perry could do, and is a pretty significant upgrade across the board (inb4 someone argues Harpoons - just don't). The Old Navy should love these ships. The Old Navy should love that the USN put it's nuts on the line to maintain ASW capability. But people only want to bag on it. I do not get it.

Friendly reminder that the Rafael Peralta and John Finn will be commissioned this month, being the first new Burkes since the Michael Murphy in 2012.

>>34507401
>Something very much achievable.

Nope.

>>34507240
Huntington Ingalls offered the Navy a Patrol Frigate based off the NSC/Legend with a starting unit cost of 446 mil as an alternative to LCS.
Let's not forget that the NSC/Legend is in the Frigate weight class, and carries 2 (2!) MH-65's in the Hangar and is capable of a wartime configuration mounting Harpoons, SEAram, torps, etc.

And there shouldn't be a fucking doubt in your mind that the NSC/Legend costs significantly less to operate annually than a LCS, despite the increased complement.

>I'll buy that both LCS hulls are more expensive to operate by maybe up to 50%, but 300% just seems ludicrous. Provide a source, please.
Again
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-06/pentagon-blocks-littoral-combat-ship-overrun-from-a-gao-report
They won't even publish the fucking overruns ffs, this shit is fucking obvious, it hasn't happened to any other modern US navy ship. Navy Brass is fucking scared shitless Congress will wake the fuck up and start asking questions/hold idiots accountable

>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ffg-7.htm
>The Department of Defense estimated at September 30, 1978, that the cost of a 52-ship FFG-7 program would be $10.1 billion, an average cost per ship of $194 million.

$194 million in 1978 is ~$728 million in 2017.

>>34506977
Survivability today is less about heavy chunks of metal and more about having redundant backups for every power/data/water/etc line that follow different routes through the ship so that one hit is less likely to take down every backup for any given system.

It doesn't have to weigh a lot; but, it does require extra up-front engineering, which the LCS program tried to skip by using commercial design rules instead of military design rules.

Yet another foolish decision that cost the program in the long run.

>>34507379
Can't the fucking Superhornet/Growler be used for the refueling mission? Or is the V-22 just too damned slow to be refueled by them?

>>34507379
Freedom and Independence are both under 4,000t Full Load - Freedom is heavier (suprisingly), Perry was ~ 4200t full load

>>34507488
>Huntington Ingalls offered the Navy a Patrol Frigate based off the NSC/Legend with a starting unit cost of 446 mil as an alternative to LCS.

And the NSC that were actually built cost ~$700 million, without many of the expensive components than the LCS require.

>They won't even publish the fucking overruns ffs

Of the first two ships (there are already nine in service), which are well known to have cost substantially more than the following ships.

>>34507488
>a starting unit cost of 446 mil as an alternative to LCS.
And the finished ships for the USCG ended up over 700mil. The LCS looks like a deal compared to that, which would have been much more expensive with all the sensor and weapons gear the USN would have needed to add to make it viable.

>Harpoons, SEAram, torps
Harpoons are crap, the LCS has SEAram, and torps are dropped by LAMPS III choppers.

>And there shouldn't be a fucking doubt in your mind that the NSC/Legend costs significantly less to operate annually than a LCS, despite the increased complement.
Why? Where's your source? The LCS ships were all cheaper, even the first in class hulls. Given the reduced compliment, I find it extremely hard to believe they cost 3x as much to operate as you claimed. Maybe a bit more, due to more systems and higher end propulsion but 3x is fucking ridiculous.

>They won't even publish the fucking overruns ffs, this shit is fucking obvious, it hasn't happened to any other modern US navy ship. Navy Brass is fucking scared shitless Congress will wake the fuck up and start asking questions/hold idiots accountable
That's not a source, and the GAO would never allow the DoD to redact reports based on being "scared shitless" of public opinion. They're a transparency organ, and their job is to bring the hammer down on projects over budget. If the DoD successfully redacted the report, then it contained information directly pertinent to readiness and operational posture.

It's not uncommon. For instance, the GAO reports on the F-22 O&S costs for the first 5 years of service were heavily redacted.

>>34507528
Yes with buddy refueling, but the USN is making a drone tanker (MQ-25 Stingray) to free up Hornets to do actual fighter things.

File: perry.jpg (1MB, 3000x1848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1848px

>>34507363
Perry master race

>>34507528
>Can't the fucking Superhornet/Growler be used for the refueling mission?
You would need a shit ton of Bugs to buddy fuel a V-22 squadron on a max-range combat mission. Buddy fuel stores are not huge, and the Bug itself has a limited range, so it'd be burning a lot of that fuel.

It's not very efficient at all. Remember, aerial refueling is the world's most expensive way to fill your gas tank by nearly an order of magnitude. There's a reason for that.

>Or is the V-22 just too damned slow to be refueled by them?
They tested it and it worked. It's an emergency option during flight ops.

>>34507556
>Independence
Ah, shit. You're right. I misremembered 3,100 and change as 4,100.

>>34507561
The NSC is a different breed entirely from a FFG or a Corvette or even a regular OPV, the shit is designed for arctic conditions, it's designed to operate on its own for extended periods at very long range patrols without the underway support that a Navy ship would get.
Ingalls offered the navy a Patrol FFG based off the NSC, not a frigging NSC

File: USS_Simpson_(FFG-56).jpg (58KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1024x768px

>>34507582
My nigger. Should bring them back.

>>34507604
Which wouldn't cost half as much despite adding lots of expensive surface combatant equipment.

>>34506419
>microwave tubes are ridiculously expensive and nowhere near as reliable as SSAs.
Do you even know how much a GaAs module cost?

Let me guess, you never went to college, got a job in the navy, and then, what? mustered out for a shitty job? It's like all the shit you know are from brochures and training manuals.

>I never said that.
it's EXACTLY what you said. Look up what FUNCTIONAL difference means.

>>34507582
That's my ultimate point, a new multipurpose modular Frigate could have done all the roles cost effectively

>>34507525
Backups doesn't help the fact the ship is knocked out for over a year after being hit, and 20 people are killed.

>>34507473
Small AShM's/torps/anti-ship mines are all easily protected against.
Saudi's have lost a few ships to anti-tank missiles, armor would allow ships to operate aggressively rather than hiding over the horizon.

There is a huge spectrum between nuclear tipped soviet supersonic AShM's and the various weaponry found in third world militaries.

>>34507621
Most of them have been sold now. At least the Navy sold alot of them instead of breaking them up like the Spruances

>>34507655
Back in the day Navy played with idea of retrofitting Perrys with SPY-1, making it an AGIS frigate. At the time it didn't make economic sense.

>>34507662
>Small AShM's/torps/anti-ship mines are all easily protected against.
Now I know you're a complete retard. Armor doesn't protect against under-keel detonation of heavy torpedoes or mines. In fact, the extra weight makes it worse - makes it EASIER to break the ship's back. It's not fucking WWII anymore, dumbass.

>>34507673
Yeah, but they kept a few that were in excellent shape at decom. I've seen Turkish FFG and a few operated by Spaniards. They all had upgraded radars and Mk-13 launcher.

>>34507686
Yea ok just like explosions in the air do more damage if they blow up 100 feet away from you huh

>>34507694
Please tell me they'll be going to the inactive/enduring fleet or whatever it's called.
The idea of being able to quickly reactivate 10 FFG's incase of WW3 makes all the sense

>>34507694
Poland, Spain, Turkey, I know a few others operate them as well

>>34507710
You aren't going to reactivate a ship that is being taken out of service because its obsolete + run into the ground.

>>34507686
(Hard)Armor sounds fucking stupid, but Spall Lining/Kevlar lining isn't a bad idea. Minimize casualties on penetration and hope compartmentalization and redundant overlapping systems design and underway damage control does the rest.
Either way a supersonic AShM is coming in one end and blowing out the other, leaving a nice gaping hole in it's wake

>>34507701
Jesus Christ. Are you really still commenting on this? Read a fucking book, dipshit. Mines and modern heavy torpedoes don't sink the ship by making a big explosion to put holes in the hull and flood spaces. They sink the ship by aerosolizing the water underneath the hull, removing the spread-out support of the water from underneath the boat for a couple seconds. This then causes the keel to sag and crack in the middle. When the water pressure all rushes back in, it then pushes back "up" very strongly on the same epicenter, causing the keel to bend (hog) in the other direction, further damaging/cracking or fully breaking it. This flexing back and forth can repeat as many as seven times at decreasing magnitude depending on the strength of the explosives.

Basically, take a 12' long two-by-four. Place it flat on your driveway. Now put a shit ton of weight on it, with 40% (equal to your body weight) or so of it more or less in the middle. All fine, right? Two-by-four doesn't break.

Now take that two by four, and set it on two chairs about 2 feet off the ground. Put all the weight back on it, except that center 40%. Now stand on the center where that weight was and hop up and down on it. What do you think happens now?

That's what an under-keel detonation is, and more weight from a shit ton of armor only makes the whole damaging process that much worse. It uses the ship's own mass to destroy it.

>>34507725
Mothball Fleet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_reserve_fleets

An old perry is still capable of escorting shit, CG's and DDG's are going to be busy escorting CVN's, Perry's can escort supply convoys without having to take a Burke off point

>>34507742
>Spall Lining/Kevlar lining isn't a bad idea
We already have this in all critical compartments in addition to some heavier bulkheads in all USN combat vessels.

>>34507701
Air compresses easily. Water doesn't.

How do you think depth charges worked?

>>34507771
>>34507771
Then we're good.

Realistically on armor, isn't the Kirov Class Battlecruiser the only truly armored ship? I mean it could probably shrug off a few pipsqueak harpoons but anything supersonic is still going to cut through it like butter

>>34507742
A super sonic AShM will splatter against hard armor
Look at the fatalities in recent times, all could have been prevented with greater outer armor.

>>34507758
Basically you are claiming that something like a bridge is physically impossible.

>>34503472
More hours per operational cycle, higher op tempo. A good example is the adoption of Vosper-Thornycroft designed 110' patrol boats by the USCG to replace the aging Cape and Point classes of PBs. The newer, larger PBs turned out to be entirely unsuited to operations in Pacific and Bering waters. They work well in the shallower waters of the Caribbean, Atlantic, and Persian Gulf.

European vessels are optimized for their home waters. Compare them to Asian naval designs, you'll see some significant differences. US designs have to be generally capable of operating everywhere, so they're not truly optimized for any particular hemisphere.

Ship design is driven by doctrine, which is driven by strategic need and shaped by experience.

A concrete example that comes to mind is the Euro/NATO policy of disbursing DC gear throughout the main deck area. US policy dictates that most DC gear be kept in repair lockers, each of which is responsible for a specific area of the ship. The NATO model allows for greater response flexibiility, the US model allows for greater concentration of assets on multiple casualties. Both models result from doctrine.

Different anon, btw.

>>34507794
Not if you hit a magazine... I don't believe their rocket motors are as insensitive as ours.

>>34507798
>Basically you are claiming that something like a bridge is physically impossible.
Anon, if you can't even understand basic high school physics, why are you commenting on the intricacies of military naval architecture? I mean, it's like a fucking toddler advising a man on the most efficient way to plumb his house because he is half way to being potty trained.

>>34507721
>>34507710
FFGs were surprisingly good ships. They were the AK-47s of the fleet. Easy and cheap to make but tough as hell and very reliable. They did sell a good deal and sank a few as targets. Here's a video of the result. The thing took two torps and stayed afloat for hours despite having all the hatches open and no damage control whatsoever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzn5L-82GdE

>>34502783
>Only 1 SPG-62 Illuminator
Just fuck my shit up sempai

>>34507806
>rocket motors
It was the fuel. Soviet rocket fuels were generally a pants-shitting nightmare to work around.

>>34507798
>A super sonic AShM will splatter against hard armor
No, just no
Your talking about HEAT or another kind of penetrating warhead including Tandem HEAT options with hundreds of lbs. of explosives behind it with diameters several times that of ATGM's capable of knocking out modern MBT's.
I mean you could make a point for some sort of standoff/spaced hull design to prematurely detonate the shit, but fuck dude some of these things are travelling over Mach 3 ffs, the kinetic energy alone will kill a ship

>>34507824
It's not like they're building the things to fend off an entire saturation attack solo, anon. These are detached cruising frigates/escorts, not CSG air defense ships.

>>34507822
I've seen the same torp completely break an old Brit ship in half sending it to the bottom within minutes. I think there's a video of a sinkex of an Australian ship getting ripped apart by a torp also.

>>34507830
>No, just no
Trust me. This isn't a rat's nest you want to get into with that anon. This has all been explained to him at least a dozen times that I've personally witnessed. He refuses to actually learn anything about the subject. I'm 99% sure he's got some moderate to severe learning disability.

>>34507830
Beyond armor effect of HEAT warheads is negligible.

>>34507821
This underkeel attack works only against under armored ships, who will shatter to pieces against these stresses.

>>34507850
>This underkeel attack works only against under armored ships, who will shatter to pieces against these stresses.
I have no fucking clue what you're trying to say here. It doesn't matter where the armor is. When you add that much weight to a hull, no matter sides, bottom or where ever, it only makes it easier for a torp or mine to break it in half.

>>34507872
Would a solid brick of steel be broken by an underkeel detonation? No, doesn't matter how many times you do it.

An armored ship can support itself on just the ends of it, the only concern is shock absorption.

>>34507850
You want a somewhat effective counter to AShM hits, besides CIWS/SEAram/decoys/EW and all that other shit?

Build a fucking Catamaran or even a Hydrofoil

>>34507891
Really? Well shoot, I guess we need to tell the HMS Barham's sailors to stop being dead, for the ship to un-explode, and for the vessel to right itself because torpedoes can't blow their way through a steel brick.

>>34507872
Are tanks obsolete because they aren't invincible? Why would an armored ship be obsolete because there is conceivably weaponry that can hurt it?

Anyways you are absolutely incorrect, a more robust ship is not going to be snapped in half due to an air bubble mid ship. As well a heavier ship will absorb the shocks better.

>>34507925
4 direct simultaneous torpedo hits, only sank because its munitions blew up.

>>34507960
>only sank because its munitions blew up.

The munitions blew up after the ship rapidly capsized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdrISbwy_zI

>>34503573
>I just want the LCS to be something of value.

It is. There'll never be a fleet of hundreds, darkening the shores of the Barbary Coast as far as the eye can see, but we definitely are getting a return on our investment. It's a proof of concept, plus a testbed, plus a neoprototype. Every $100K we spent on the 2 LCS designs will save us a half billion in 20 years. We're gonna have us some Yankee Space Magic fucking flying atomic submersible battleships because of that boat.

Everybody laughs at us, and how we spend money R&Ding all manner of weird shit. And then they turn around and copy it. The LCS, Zum, Ford, and F-35 are all examples of that. Ignore the shitposters.

>>34507891
>Would a solid brick of steel be broken by an underkeel detonation?
Anon. Jesus. Ships aren't solid steel. By their very definition, they have to be overall less dense than water.

Fuck, why are you even arguing this? There are literally HOURS of sinkex footage on youtube. Go watch some of them. See with your own eyes what happens when something blows up with enough force underneath a ship.

>>34507891
>An armored ship can support itself on just the ends of it, the only concern is shock absorption.
No. It literally cannot. There is no ship ever built in history that could. In fact, many heavily armored ships actually broke in half while sinking just because their bow or sterns flooded and lifted the other end out of the water, and those were the most heavily armored ships the world has ever seen.

>>34503049
>relying on other countries for armaments design and construction

No.

>>34503701
>buying trash

>>34507960
>Why would an armored ship be obsolete because there is conceivably weaponry that can hurt it?
Because the gains from the armor in safety and combat efficiency are so minimal compared to the extra cost and performance penalties in extra fuel and slower speed. Armor for a modern ship would need to add at least 30% of total displacement for it to be doing really anything at all against modern weapons, and even then it'd still be helpless against heavy torpedoes, mines and nuclear AShMs.

It. Isn't. Fucking. Worth. It.

>Anyways you are absolutely incorrect, a more robust ship is not going to be snapped in half due to an air bubble mid ship. As well a heavier ship will absorb the shocks better.
No. You could not be more wrong. Please, for the love of god, just go crack a physics text book or watch some sink ex videos. Educate yourself. This is shit my son in high school has zero trouble understanding. Why are you so dense?

>>34507822
OHP's were not cheap.

>>34508075
Back in WW1 & WW2 armored ships were for engaging other ships at sea, they had to balance speed & armor, also to account for steel shortages + treaty/canal limits to the ships.

What the US needs is armored coastal monitors which can take hits while close to hostile shores.

Instead the US will be just accepting casualties trying to force Burkes into a close range fire support role.

>>34503677
Damn, you're pulling all kinds of hate. I'm going to disagree with you about France, because they still have cause to deploy to the Pacific. UK can still build global designs, although their stuff is tending toward Atlantic optimization.

>>34507278
Subs as picket units? Nigga do you even into cooperative engagement?

>>34508113
>Instead the US will be just accepting casualties trying to force Burkes into a close range fire support role.
Why the fuck would they? There's a reason we put so much emphasis on air launched standoff PGMs and long, long ranged Tomahawk missiles. The entire point is that we DON'T put our ships inside their threat envelope until we've cleared away a corridor for them.

It's like you're arguing this while having exactly zero clue how we fight wars now. What is wrong with you? If you give this much of a shit about it, go learn about it. Stop shitposting and actually learn something about the subject.

The best way to tank a torpedo or guided missile is to not get hit by it. If you do get hit, the less capability and capital tied up in that ship, the less damaging it is to the fleet if it's damaged or destroyed. Armor is expensive and labor intensive, and the cold, hard force of statistics came out in favor of lighter ships.

>>34508133
>Why the fuck would they?

Because otherwise they are engaging in a delusional fantasy of "Our precision weaponry will kill all the enemy and we won't ever get shot."

>how we fight wars now
The US hasn't fought a naval war in 70 years, there has certainly never been a test of US naval doctrine in that time.

>>34508113
>advocating opposed amphibious landings in the year 2017

>>34508203
>We don't need to fight wars anymore, its 2017!

>>34508193
>Our precision weaponry will kill all the enemy and we won't ever get shot.

A hell of a lot less of the attacking force will die in this scenario compared to trying to brute force your way in under enemy fire.

>>34508193
>Our precision weaponry will kill all the enemy
At what point since Desert Storm has it not?

>we won't ever get shot
Having armor and wading into range of every coastal gun emplacement, AShM battery, aircraft with an AShM and black dude with a really long dick and strong stream doesn't change this. In fact, it makes it much more likely we'll get shot and people will die.

>The US hasn't fought a naval war in 70 years
We've been executing strike, ground support and air supremacy missions from off of hostile coasts almost continuously since Desert Storm. And when it comes to an actual conventional naval battle between ships, USN doctrine and strategy puts SSNs and air launched AShMs at the spearhead of that attack while our ships work to stay out of the enemy's strike range and recon assets. This is literally USN tactics 101. Read. A. Fucking. Book. Please.

>there has certainly never been a test of US naval doctrine in that time.
Feel free to suggest a single naval power in the world that can dream, on a good day, of going toe to toe with the USN.

>>34508212
>the most costly way of doing it is the only way to do it

File: 1475967573355.jpg (27KB, 420x250px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 420x250px

>>34508230
>and black dude with a really long dick and strong stream
holy fucking kek

>>34508219
Except you still will have to brute force your way through things, it's just now you'll have to do it with burkes & AAV's because you refused to purchase proper vehicles.
What would the US do in the situation of an occupied Korea or Taiwan? Just abandon our allies after declaring a contested landing is impossible?

>>34508233
No objective worth taking will be undefended

>>34503701
Disposable ships. In 20 years they'll spend as much time refitting as they do at sea. And a FRAM or SLEP cycle will have the effect of adding 60% to the acquisition amortization rate even after factoring for the extended end of service life.

>>34503701
>should have just bought Chinese.

Says no serious procurement decision-maker, ever.

File: listerinefag.png (1MB, 1902x9492px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1902x9492px

>>34508193
>>34508113
You are, hands down, the stupidest fucking autist on /k/. Every time I see you post, it makes me want to hasten the end of humanity out of sheer despair. Fuck off, listerinefag. Fuck off and never come back.

>>34508268
Cheaper to spend the time in port rather than driving in circles at sea or doing "humanitarian" garbage

>>34508251
Forcing a landing where your enemy's defenses are the strongest is the height of stupidity.

>>34508294
Height of stupidity is thinking you'll be able to chopper in a handful of marines then waltz into your objective.

Which is the current US military doctrine.

>>34504290
Probably restricted information, which is why they kept hammering you with it. They knew you wouldn't have the info to do an objective analysis.

>>34508328
>Which is the current US military doctrine.

I would tell you to do your research but it would be a waste of effort.

>>34508287
A ship tied up at the pier is a shitty ROI. If you're going to build a ship, use it.

Wow, I learned a lot from this thread

So what's the problem with the LCS?

>>34509174
Let's say you want to buy an autism spinner, your choices are either the American branded one on ebay priced $60 or the Chinese factory made in Aliexpress for $5. What you want it to do is relatively easy, to spin.

>>34503701
>AA Missile armament
>x32 Buk Knock off

>Type 26 AA missile armament
>x48 canisters of Camm-M + 24 cells of quad packed Camm-M for a total 144 Camm-M

>>34509174
>So what's the problem with the LCS?

It's made by Americans in American shipyards.

>>34509445
this

>>34509429
They could fit a lot more Mk41 on a T26 if they ditched the mission bay. It would pretty much be a destroyer then if you use armament to determine warship type.

File: xx.jpg (243KB, 2048x1151px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 2048x1151px

>>34503400
Current Australian version design

>>34509515
Those cute little radar panels are kawaii and all but without big AESA panels it's not going to go anywhere without a big DDG guarding it.

>>34503701

cute

File: Type 26.jpg (98KB, 713x401px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 713x401px

>>34503400
>>34509515


Current British version design

File: DDuw0pHW0AA41VU.jpg (246KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1920x1080px

>>34509639
Actually this

File: wwewlads.png (1MB, 1915x741px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1915x741px

>>34509623
They are AESA, and will probably end up being around the size of pic related

File: DDjMLOXXcAEt5ot.jpg (31KB, 453x680px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 453x680px

>>34506960
You cant outrun torpedoes anyway, so why bother with speed. ASW isn't called Awful Slow Warfare without a reason. You need to go slow to not get cavitation and blot out your sonar. For anything else, the 054A gets ASROCs.

The single helo spot was equally a decision made back when China had only limited ASW helos to begin with - a slight modification on the RHIB storages will make space for a dual hangar.

>>34509702

Well done in not answering his point in typical shill fashion.

>>34509623
>big AESA panels

With big panels you get a limit on the horizon otherwise you get topweight issues.

File: catug.jpg (27KB, 395x395px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 395x395px

>>34509515
>>34509661
which one is it?

>>34509797
Can you read?

>>34509797
The one with the large bridge wings is the latest version of the Type 26.

I doubt it's a contender in this case though, it look like the USN rather wants an already proven design, Plus, the Type 26 is hilariously expensive. The first 3 will be around $1.6 billion each, while the radar, CAMM missiles and sonar suite will be directly taken from the Type 23. And it has a less advanced propulsion system than the Type 23 too.

>>34502783
>>34502961
...Why not just man up and build more Flight III Burkes?

>>34504417
So something that gets irrevocably BTFO in any sort of ship-to-ship engagement huh?

>>34504678
POWER PROJECTION
So how are those Marines going to get to their designated targets anon?

>>34509920
Why when you can have more ships that cost them more missiles to spam.

File: deepwater horizon.jpg (168KB, 2048x1447px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 2048x1447px

>>34506429
This is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. YOU CAN SEE THE FUCKING SLICK.
STOP FUCKING POSTING THIS SHIT

File: Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier viewd from orbit.jpg (53KB, 960x635px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x635px

>>34509964
Ok, you got me, here's the real one

>>34507805

Can you actually specify these though? You basically just said "Euros don't have these" and didn't show a shred of evidence about that they don't. If anything, European ships are VERY specialized for abroad these days.

Which specific ship classes in Europe do you mean, which requirements don't have a single ship that can do it and what is your evidence of it?

File: LNG_carrier_chemengineer_explains_why_no_armor.png (267KB, 1840x2139px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1840x2139px

>>34506906

>>34509881

>The first 3 will be around $1.6 billion each

Bear in mind a large, LARGE portion of this is just BAE fucking the UK MoD over because of the "Scotland situation". The UK has to pay 2-3 times more for ships there.

Export Rivers are about 3 for $150m. Ones for the MoD are more than twice that.

So in all reality a Type 26 is probably around $450m-$600m depending on fit for an export customer.

>>34503540
You are upgrading your Anzacs with CAMM. The replacement will probably be a Korean patrol frigate as the SEA5000 program is for a major combatant, not a patrol boat with a medium gun.

>>34503573
You can't put paper under them, so its not even that. They are a direct replacement for the Pegasus class hydrofoil, which was also unwanted and basically useless except for drug patrols in the Caribbean.

>>34503888
Type 31 is the Tier 2 combatant that was dropped in favour of an all T26 frigate fleet (with reduced numbers).
Now the Type 31 is back in the mix as part of the T26 numbers. except only three T26s have been ordered and there is no money being spent on T31.
So the RN will likely end up with no T31 and a maximum of 8 T26.

>>34509993

where did you hear this?

last I heard they were building far more type 31's to make up the numbers for the reduced order of type 266's

>>34507006
Navantia has been paid by the OZ govt. to develop a twin hanger ASW version of the F105, using OZ radars and aegis combat system.
This may fit requirements.

>>34510015
>aegis combat system
Aegis or 9LV. It's not decided yet.

>>34510017
Can Aegis work with a non AN/SPY radar? It's a mandatory requirement that the Aussie frigate use an indigenous CEA developed radar

>>34510015
hope we go with the T26 desu

>>34509974

This is some serious wisdom right there.

>>34510020
Sure it can, they'd just have to rework the current system

>>34504559
What happened to the Avenger Class? Built after the Gulf War because the US Navy lacked modern MCM capabilities.

>>34509976
As I know the Batch 2 River-class OPVs are quite a bit different than the Brazilian versions, so that might explain the price increase. Plus the price for the Brazilian OPVs might just be an example of undercutting as a way to reel in more contracts from the Brazilian MoD. They have been planning to get some new surface ships for quite some time.

The $1.6 billion a piece does include a lot of previously signed contracts, so the price of the ship itself will be quite lower (which we'll probably see happen when the next batch of T26s gets ordered), but I don't think the price will ever go much lower than $800m-$1bn a piece. For export customers, the contract still has to include radars, CAMM or other surface-to-air missiles and a full sonar suite.

>>34509993

The plan remains 8 Type 26, 5+ Type 31.

>>34510013

Rumourmill said 6, which allows the Gov to say "growing". But thats just rumour, nothing concrete or credible.

>>34510133

They aren't that different. It's mostly minor changes, nothing worth making them cost twice as much.

It was mostly because of TOBA and BAE being able to charge a stupid amount, because if they don't buy something, it's giving the SNP ammunition to cry and bitch. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

>>34509964
Burgers feel intimidated.

>>34509881
>>34510133

The first three Type 26s will have new sets of equipment. Nothing will be pulled from the Type 23s.

>>34510015
I would stay very far away from them seeing as the whole project is close to five years and over a billion dollars over its already ridiculous budget ($8billion for 3 ships)

>>34509702
>You cant outrun torpedoes anyway, so why bother with speed.
Well actually you can. Its is about difference of speeds. 30 knots ship vs 50 knots 1 hour torpedo is 20 knots closing speed and 20 miles range. 44 knots ship is 6 knots closing speed and pitiful 6 miles range.

But today tehre is another aproach. DSG supercavitating ammo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xbIaCZNv30
It is very very probable that Navy Mk-46 30mm received such capability.

But FFG(X) RFI has no provisions for 30mm. Dumb. Many such cases.

>>34510148

To be fair, the ability to build your own warships and submarines is something worth paying a premium for as large island nation. Even if the Jocks are insufferable, that's where most of the remaining naval industry is.

File: f35 vs su35.png (293KB, 585x808px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 585x808px

>>34510154
Circulating false images/photoshopped images and then using them to go LOLRUSSIANS is nearly as cancerous as <pic related

>>34510408
Wow! F-35 confirmed for shit!

Burgers BTFO!

File: f35lemon.jpg (32KB, 420x421px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 420x421px

>>34510408
it's over for Drumpf

>>34510398

No disagreement.

But the sooner the SNP fuck off and we can reliably order from Scotland without their threats making BAE charge extra to exploit the consequences of not ordering enough/in time the better.

>>34509445
>>34509457
Pretty much, it double triggers people who hate America.

>>34507379
>RCS of Rosie O'Donnell wrapped in aluminum foil
Kek

>>34504733
I still want to see them Frankenstein a rebuilt OHP with an Aegis-derivative in a forward pyramid mast and a simple 20-40 cell forward VLS replacing the Mk 13 to serve as a 21st century El Cheapo spam fleet.

>>34507419
>which in both forms does everything a Perry could do
That's where we disagree. The Perry had the range, the sonar, and the speed for ASW picket, while at the same time having a good radar and a single-arm launcher which let it be useful for fleet air defence/radar picket duties, plus a non-negligible role as a surface combatant (Harpoon and SM-1 in the ASuW role). The OHP also had a 76mm gun as opposed to the 57mm on the LCS.
The LCS seems to be terribly underarmed for a ship its size.

>>34507794
If you hit the VLS, it'll go up in flames. I believe they're protected against fragments, and perhaps against a Harpoon to the reactor compartment, but all the rest is probably protected only by CIWS.

File: 300px-TankerSchenectady.jpg (18KB, 300x235px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x235px

>>34507798
>A super sonic AShM will splatter against hard armor
>what are SAP warheads: the post
Also, get a clue as to what bending moments are, what the hull girder is, and what happens when a ship has its water support violently removed, in addition to cavitation damage.
Hell, it doesn't even have to be an explosion to exceed σy.

>>34508069
>There'll never be a fleet of hundreds, darkening the shores of the Barbary Coast as far as the eye can see
Why live

>>34508294
And that's why you don't do it. You maintain amphib capability for 4 reasons:
1. To force your opponent to beef up shore defences enough to oppose a landing (which is a lot)
2. To conduct un- or lightly-opposed landing operations.
3. To have a sea-deployable fast reaction force.
4. For when there is no better option.

Point (1) was notably done during the 1st Gulf war, causing Saddam to locate his best units near the coastline, where they were vulnerable to carrier avaition and naval artillery, and leaving the desert clear for the maneuver groups.
Point (2) has been used on multiple occasions in the past.
Point (3) was also used during the 1st Gulf war- USMC were practically the first responders, as their gear was all packed up and ready to deploy when the orders came.
Point (4) is such cases as Normandy, Pacific islands, and so forth.

>>34509942
Vertical launch ASM and SAM are a thing. Strike length cells are for Tomahawks and tomahawk accessories, and BMD missiles. Tactical length cells can carry SM-2,6 ESSM quads, Harpoons, and VL ASROC, pretty much sufficient for the targets a FF would be expected to engage. I believe the LRASM requires strike length tubes, same as the now-retired TASM.

>>34511218
So do I, anon.

>>34511393

Don't forget point 5, it is a capability your enemy has to plan for, enabling you to force them to commit forces to defend areas that would otherwise be safe.

In Operation Desert Storm, a USMC landing was feinted to force Saddam to commit forces to defend against this possibility, and distract from the real threat of encirclement coming from the desert to the west instead of the sea to the east.

https://www.stripes.com/news/special-reports/the-gulf-war-25-year-anniversary/deception#.WWUCxNQrKt8

>>34511530
That's point 1.

>>34509967
And that one is from Volcano eruption. You are`nt even trying, really.

>>34511581
Butthurt slavaboo detected