different answers to the same question
So the British can design and build a ship. The Japanese can design and build a ship. But my beloved navy, once the master of the world’s oceans, has to send off for some mail order drawings in order to build ships of war. People used to get fired for this kinda stuff. Now they just get promoted.
I think the type 26 has a couple of single mount 30mm guns. anti-small boat?
on the topic of CIWS, you give the US credit for their RAM missiles. Do they function in an anti-boat mode or is the 57mm and perhaps a M2, as good as a Phalanx for boats?
is the 57mm useful for anything other than suicide boats?
I don't know why (I'll leave it to you Navy types) but these "Frigates" are approximately the same tonnage as a WWII Light Cruiser (say, Juneau-class), ~8000 tons loaded.
A Perry-class FFG is about half that.
The current Flight-III Burke's are in the 9500 ton range, not that much bigger...
Seems that a Flight-IV Burke would do the job?
I suppose the people at PEO think - or have been told - we will only be fighting these ships at range. Mr. Murphy always intervenes and it would be good to have a little heavier ordnance to answer the bell when he calls.
1. Still need smaller combatants for presence in those less obviously important areas and "experience" in peacetime. Non-emitting ISR, SAR, and commerce harassment in war.
2. Still need more tenders and resupply vessels, especially ones to haul the supplies to the ships that resupply combatants.
3. Slightly OT: What if the Navy grows the guts the Coast Guard has, and says "We're laying up ships until we can crew them properly"?
I would prefer a 5" gun. No better way to say "I love you" to the guy with the RPG waiting for you at the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
I really like the idea that Japan is already looking for a new class to replace the Mogami class. That is a sign of a robust design cycle and fleet integration plan. The Italian Navy used to do that, where each new small class used much the same equipment as the previous, but in an ongoing evolution of their fleet. I haven't looked recently to see if that is still part of their process.
7300 tons is a pretty big frigate. My DE, Courtney, DE-1021, was far smaller. The Gehrings were also a lot smaller.
The HM&E design is older but the combat system may not be. The SPY-6 radar is a scaled down version of the one on the Flt III, don't know about the ones on the other two ships. The 72 VLS cells listed for the Type 26 is deceptive. 24 are in a Mk 41. 48 are for the Sea Cepter which is a smaller missile. A good follow on discussion would be to compare Sea Cepter to the latest ESSM as to range and capability.
I think the Constellation looks best in illustrated form; but then again, I've always had a weakness for a nicely sized poop deck.
A big ol' stern, you could say.
A fat fantail.
I'm sorry, what was the question again?
First, given the TICO's were based off a destroyer hull. And, the Constellation is coming close to the weight of a Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyer. I'm beginning to fail to see the distinction between cruisers, destroyers and frigates. In the pre-WWII big gun navy, this all made more sense.
So, why not just use whatever paucity of shipbuilding assets to just build the Arleigh Burkes. You'll have a commonality of a ship assets, commonality of spare parts, and commonality of weapon load outs. We already need to prepare for a three front war with a badly depleted industrial base. Pick a design, one design, and get a start on a 600 ship navy.
One advantage of starting a new design while the last one's fairly fresh is that by keeping the design team employed and engaged, you don't lose all the little stuff the team screwed up on the last design. The sub example is how Seawolf came in heavy and expensive and had design weirdness that was unnecessarily convoluted or absurd...and then they designed the stretch module for the third of class...then started on Virginia with some continuity of knowledge and lessons identified, making that first-of-class have fewer ridiculous design or production weirdnesses than it might have otherwise. (The contrast might be whoever decided, after a long gap making new ships, to make a surface ship's firemain out of titanium for some reason.) Seems to me learning curve ain't just for the builders, it's also for the designers.
Type 26 is a frigate. The RN defines a frigate as an anti submarine, or general purpose escort, and a destroyer as an anti air specialist escort.
Ultimately weight wise, all these escorts are starting to look like WW2 light cruisers.
Why does it not surprise me that the US frigate has the smallest gun? Why does the modern Pentagon insist on sending our sailors into battle with undersized guns and missiles that lack range and capability?
Constellation learned lessons from optimal manning...until the first FFG is commissioned, there's still a chance optimal manning will return.
Frankly, the Brits are taking too long on Type 26. Its an example of too long and too few. Seems like type 31 might beat it out the door. I think the kick here is we have a horde of relevant allied frigates out there to be thinking about for design ideas and are in the water.
- French FTI
- Korean FFX Batch III
- Italian PPA (Yes, its a frigate)