Posted on 01/10/2018 7:58:08 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Lockheed Martin model of their proposed frigate design, based on the Littoral Combat Ship, on display at the 2018 Surface Navy Association conference. Note VLS hatches on foredeck, behind turret and flanked by OTH launchers.
UPDATED with CNO comment on importance of program CRYSTAL CITY: By the end of March, the Navy will award four to six contracts for “conceptual” designs of a future frigate. That ship that must cost under $950 million, have “Grade A shock hardening” on key systems to survive blasts, and carry at least 16 Vertical Launch System cells to defend itself and nearby vessels, program manager Regan Campbell told the Surface Navy Association conference here.
Those requirements, among many others, demand a much more formidable and more expensive vessel than the current, controversial Littoral Combat Ship. They make winning harder for the builders of the two existing LCS variants — Marinette Marine’s Freedom monohull and Austal’s Independence trimaran — which are making ships for under $500 million apiece that lack VLS and heavy-duty shock hardening. On the other hand, that $950 million maximum may be a challenge for the larger and more capable foreign frigates in the competition.
A crucial caveat: The forthcoming decision doesn’t knock anybody out of the competition. The four to six winners will split $90 million to do conceptual designs due in 16 months, and they’ll get intensive feedback from the Navy how to improve their work. But the Navy will also keep updating a “bidders’ library” with the latest specifications and files of Government Furnished Information (GFI), which will be available to all interested and qualified parties. When the government issues its final Request For Proposals (RFP) late this year — in the first quarter of fiscal year 2019 — any company can enter the “full and open competition,” even if they didn’t get a conceptual design contract.
The choice that really counts will come in 2020, when the Navy chooses one design to actually build. The first ship will be bought in 2020 (and delivered in 2026), the second in ’21, and two a year after that.
That $950 million figure is the maximum average price allowed for ships two to 20: The first of class can (and almost certainly will) go higher. Those caveats aside, the $950 million is the real average cost per ship, including the Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) provided by the Navy rather than the winning contractor. (You can hide hundreds of millions in costs by not counting all GFE).
The Government Furnished Equipment will be expensive, Campbell said, to ensure that whichever design wins, it will have compatible technology with the rest of the fleet. Used tried-and-true tech also reduces cost and risk. That includes standard Navy radars and the COMBATSS-21 combat management system, a dialed-down derivative of the Aegis air and missile defense system used on destroyers. (By contrast, the original LCS were allowed to use sui generis electronics, creating all sorts of headaches).
The GFE also includes Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems, specifically the full-size “strike length” version capable of carrying the Navy’s entire array of offensive and defensive missiles. Earlier frigate concepts had made VLS optional; now it’s mandatory, Campbell made clear. 16 VLS cells is the minimum, 32 the preferred or “objective” number. In addition, the frigate needs eight dedicated on-deck launchers for Over-The-Horizon anti-ship missiles.
The VLS cells, by contrast, are primarily needed for anti-aircraft and anti-cruise-missile weapons, like the SM-2 Standard Missile and the ESSM Sea Sparrow. (Though VLS can load offensive weapons if the situation warrants, she said). These defensive weapons are not just to protect the frigate itself but nearby vessels for which it’s providing “close escort.” How close? Campbell carefully didn’t say — details are classified — but she made clear there was no appetite, and no money, for the frigate to replicate the extensive air and missile defense capabilities of a full-size Aegis destroyer.
While better armed and better protected than LCS, the future frigates will still — like LCS — serve as the “low” half of a “high-low” mix alongside destroyers and cruisers. Unlike LCS, however, the frigates will have the VLS, shock hardening and reinforced hull structures to accompany the destroyers into so-called contested environments under threat from a hostile and well-armed enemy. That’s a big shift from the early vision for LCS. The frigates will also have the command, control, and communications systems to work with amphibious and aircraft carrier task forces. In short, the Navy doesn’t want an auxiliary ship: It wants a frigate that can fight with the fleet.
UPDATE On an even larger scale, the frigate is a test case for a new and more streamlined approach to shipbuilding, the Chief of Naval Operators told reporters later at the conference. “We’ve been doing anything we can to reform our (acquisition) processes so we can challenge the assumptions, particularly (for) shipbuilding — I think we can just do that a little faster,” Adm. John Richardson said. “The one that we’re going to see, I hope, a big step forward in that regard is the frigate program.”
UPDATE We need to get the frigate right, Adm. RIchardson said, “not only because we need those ships, but also we’re really trying to approach how we design and build of our ships differently, which might define a new era in shipbuilding.”
Here’s what Wiki says,
- - - -
Type: Guided missile frigate
Boats & landing
craft carried: Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boats
Sensors and
processing systems: A COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System (AEGIS derivative)
A fixed, phased-array radar
Next Generation Surface Search Radar
AN/SLQ-61 light weight towed array sonar
AN/SQS-62 Variable-Depth Sonar
AN/SQQ-89F undersea warfare/anti-submarine warfare combat system
Cooperative Engagement Capability
Armament: Possibly RIM-162 ESSM Block 2 and/or RIM-174 Standard ERAM missiles
Four canister launched Over-the-horizon Anti-Ship Weapons
Surface-to-surface Longbow Hellfire missiles
SeaRAM Close-In Weapons System
a Mk 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile and related systems.[1]
Unknown amount of VLS tubes [2]
Aircraft carried: 1x MH-60R Seahawk helicopter
MQ-8C Firescout
- - - -
I’ll take this ship over any surface warship from WW2. Do you know why? The old cans from WW2 would get sunk by this little ole modern frigate every time.
Agreed - and use the real estate for more VLS
If you look at the basic characteristics listed in Post #21 you can see that the ship has a good mix of capabilities and looks to be a greatly improved design over the LCS and the old Oliver Hazard Perry frigates from the 80s. However the weapons systems can be improved to be at least on par with the latest Russian and Chinese weapons that are being put on their new advanced frigates. Adding a torpedo capability can help even more
Lockheed Martin has already tested a harpoon replacement.
Pick one quickly and put 50 of them to sea in 5 years.
While building 3 Virginia class subs every year...with a parallel modern DE build of 3 per year until we reach 30.
And, of course, we must maintain our current build rate of Aegis platforms, and Carriers and Amphibs.
Not all ships have to be $3bil masterpieces. Sometimes you just need platforms at sea that can shoot.
It is not on par with these ships.
China:
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/china-launches-new-type-054a-guided-missile-stealth-frigate/
Russia:
http://www.military-today.com/navy/admiral_gorshkov_class.htm
It is better than Harpoon but not in the league of Onyx Yakhunt (Super Sunburn).
“In any case, this LCS upgrade cannot survive a duel with a T-72 tank on the beach, or defend itself from the ubiquitous motorboat close in attack. It also has no ASW defense.”
The upgraded LCS will not win this competition.
The National Security Frigate will.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-04/its-time-sea-control-frigate
The LCS upgrade is only one proposal. The other proposals are actual frigates. It’s thought the current problems with the actual LCS are going to make the “upgraded to frigate” version the odds-on least favorite. The others mount CIWS guns and such.
A WW2 frigate or destroyer could not penetrate battleship armor either, as Taffy 3 demonstrated.
“Its unlikely that Harpoons, with a 500 lb warhead, could have sunk a WWII capital ship.”
The Harpoon can blow the antennas off of any WWII ship and take it out of the fight.
It could be sunk later by any available platform.
IIRC, Harpoons use a much more powerful (weight for weight) explosive compound (DESTEX) than anything non-nuclear in WW2. It also delivers all of it and doesn’t have to crack a heavy shell to get out. WW2 battleship armor piercing shells were something like 2000-3000lbs and had less than 100lbs of bursting charge. Most of the weight of the shell was the actual shell itself, not the explosive.
Yes, it really can be a lot better.
The helipad and hangers would carry helicopters and large drones. The drones are critical for extending sensor range in today’s battlespace.
At $950 Million per ship I see the usual 10X profit margins are getting fatter while the ships are getting smaller :-(
Just how much did previous or current generation of Destroyers billed at? I dont recall that they were more than $200 Million each?
My sentiments exactly.
They are only improving things marginally rather than developing weapons that are superior to our enemies. This is what you call crony capitalism.
IMHO, sooner or later the Navy is going to have to go up on tonnage in order to carry the hardware they want. The Demoines class cruisers ran at about 18k tons.
The bow has no chin sonar dome. Interesting.
Nope 57mm/2.25”/6pdr like on the LCS
Thanks for the specs.
Is the primary purpose of the gun to stop attacks by small watercraft?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
