The question isn't "why not" but "what's the need?" What need (s) does the Navy have that are fulfilled by this ship, and then by a gun on this ship, and then in comparison to other needs.
Notably, bigger guns are generally slower to traverse with a lower rate of fire, and one of the stated missions of the frigate is to defend against small boat swarms. In certain areas ROE will nullify the range advantage.
Not to say Sal is wrong, but there's more under the hood that complicates a clear correction to a political desirement.
It doesn't; it apologizes for it. It was 100% a political decision by the most compromised people influenced by the worst incentives in DC. It was made specifically to allow variants of LCS to be considered in the FFG competition. That is it. That is the only reason. Other explanations you may hear are just excuses. Mad? Good. You should be. Pray Flight II will correct this horrible error.
You ask the question "Constellation is expected to displace twice as much as the ROKN frigate...but does she bring twice the punch?", which is very similar to the questions/complaints we US sailors made about our designs v. Soviet and other European designs in the 80's. In my career as a naval architect, I was on the periphery of those studies and their lessons have stuck with me. At that time, the chief design penalties we had to put up with were the need for longer range and US habitability standards. As in other discussions, we have to include logistics as a necessary feature of the force needed to support the pointy end of the spear. Perhaps we need to modify the structure of the Pacific Fleet to include a larger logistic element, thereby not requiring our combatant ships to have quite the long legs we now design into them. Like most difficult problems, this one will need considerable thought to derive the best answer.
How does the Navy justify a 57 mm gun?
Does seem a bit small; why not a 105mm or even a high velocity 88mm @ the very least?
The question isn't "why not" but "what's the need?" What need (s) does the Navy have that are fulfilled by this ship, and then by a gun on this ship, and then in comparison to other needs.
Notably, bigger guns are generally slower to traverse with a lower rate of fire, and one of the stated missions of the frigate is to defend against small boat swarms. In certain areas ROE will nullify the range advantage.
Not to say Sal is wrong, but there's more under the hood that complicates a clear correction to a political desirement.
Or at least something like the current flavor of 76mm OTO Melara, which ought to be a relatively easy swap (maybe?).
It doesn't; it apologizes for it. It was 100% a political decision by the most compromised people influenced by the worst incentives in DC. It was made specifically to allow variants of LCS to be considered in the FFG competition. That is it. That is the only reason. Other explanations you may hear are just excuses. Mad? Good. You should be. Pray Flight II will correct this horrible error.
You ask the question "Constellation is expected to displace twice as much as the ROKN frigate...but does she bring twice the punch?", which is very similar to the questions/complaints we US sailors made about our designs v. Soviet and other European designs in the 80's. In my career as a naval architect, I was on the periphery of those studies and their lessons have stuck with me. At that time, the chief design penalties we had to put up with were the need for longer range and US habitability standards. As in other discussions, we have to include logistics as a necessary feature of the force needed to support the pointy end of the spear. Perhaps we need to modify the structure of the Pacific Fleet to include a larger logistic element, thereby not requiring our combatant ships to have quite the long legs we now design into them. Like most difficult problems, this one will need considerable thought to derive the best answer.
Best part about the Korean FFG? You can build them cheaper and faster.