No, buy them just like they are and do not let the Navy change anything. Otherwise we will end up with a 3000 ton ship 10 years from now that sort of looks like the original.
We can communicate with Israel military now, and we can go back in and update the comm suite as needed. But the US Navy has shown they cannot leave well enough alone. We have gone from 85% the same as the base ship for Constellation to 15%. Zumwalts kept changing till they got so expensive we only got 3. This happens over and over.
85% was the stated goal at the start. There is so little left of the original design at this point that a clean sheet would have maxed as much since. The point was to take an existing design, make the minimum changes required to meet US requirements, and put it in production. This was not done.
Good work for them. Small ships, based on the German Braunschweig-class corvettes. Not much for sea-keeping or range, but the Israeli Navy doesn’t have the same need the US Navy does for range.
I imagine being built in warship facilities to warship standards, as I understand it from Wikipedia (yes, I know, but going to the original sources helps cut down on the BS), was also a factor.
"The Israeli naval strike on Yemen's Port of Hodeidah was carried out by a ship that launched two precision sea-to-land missiles from hundreds of kilometers away..."
The RGM-84L-4 model Harpoon Block II's allegedly can be configured for ground attack, so I would guess those. 70NM works out to about 130km.
I'm going to be the killjoy here as all you Navy types bask in the reflected glory of the IDF. Seems they might be infected with the same rivalry that infects us. eg wanting the coach to send them into the game with expensive toys. I don't know what munitions they used or what the AF drops, but a Mark 84 2,000 pounder with a $30k JDAM kit hits a lot harder than a 7 figure, long range missile.
good Navy PR though :)
ps: Saar 6's, nice ships. we should be so lucky...
That's a valid counterpoint. But I'd offer a counter-counterpoint that the cost of that Mk84 would include the cost of a very long-range air strike, tying up considerable expensive assets (especially Israel's small number of air-refueling tankers) and flying into airspace whos AA has been demonstrated to be not entirely toothless.
Now, the obvious counter-counter-counterpoint (er....) is that those ships are also expensive assets. But while the IAF is probably fairly well occupied right now with the Iran and Gaza threat axes, the Israeli Navy is probably less heavily tasked. And the Sa'ar is also better equipped to defend itself from the level of threat the Houthis pose, overall.
Also, the benefit of some real-world live-fire exercise shouldn't be discounted. I wonder if the Israelis were expecting/hoping for a chance to exercise their shipboard AA against live missiles.
Before getting into the comment. Wiki's list of kit is wrong. Its 40 C-dome, 16 Barak-8, and if you look they have only set it up for 8 ASMs. They also swapped spots for the Typhoon guns and decoy launchers from the original model. 40 Tamirs weigh about the same as 21 RAM Blk II as do the 16 Barak 8. About the same AAW load as the German corvettes they are based upon.
You may recall that our FMS folks, with a big assist from LMC and a few retired flags, pushed hard on the Israelis to buy a Freedom Class variant to replace the Sa’ar 5’s that were built at Ingalls.
Same story with the Saudis who eventually went with a Navantia design corvette.
HII tried with an NSC variant, the Patrol Frigate but absent any support from USN, that effort went nowhere.
The IN was not convinced that the USG financial support that came with an LCS selection was worth the risk. Smart move…
The latest Sa'ar-class ships were built in Germany, as have been Israel's diesel subs. Israel is actively expanding its domestic ship building capability. Israel builds its own Shaldag patrol boats, which it also exports to other countries. I think Israel is building its next Sa-ar ship in Israel and has 6 of the newer Sa'ar-class ships, which were developed to protect Israel's off-shore gas fields, and also, to deal deal with regional maritime and coastal threats from Syria, among other places.
The Sa'ar is also an LCS. A Littoral Capable Ship.
Not remotely. 56 SAMS of 2 types vs Connie with 3. 21 RAM, 32 VLS which could easily be 32 ESSM with 24 SM-2 for instance. Plus Connie has 2 aviation assets and 16 ASMs vs the actual fitted 8 of Sa'ar 6.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here -- the 57mm isn't necessarily a bad choice (I know, this puts me in a distinct minority here). For a "littoral" ship that's liable to spend time within reach of massed Shahed-class drone swarms, my preference would be for the smallest, most rapid-firing gun I can mount that can fire VT-type rounds and reach out to the horizon (plus 5-10%). The smaller rounds give me larger magazine capacity, and the smaller mount lets me allocate weight and space to (IMO) more vital assets.
This does give away punch vs other ships, or land targets, but trying to have *everything* is a major reason why the Connie is currently overweight, overbudget, and overschedule. In the current threat environment, for the Connies I would personally prioritize mass cheap subsonic drone swarms over ship-v-ship or shore bombardment, alongside some degree of higher-tier anti-air (supersonic AShMs) and some reasonable anti-sub capability. That's based on assuming the Connies are being used in littoral or convoy-escort roles, or as bolstering escorts for heavier surface groups alongside Burkes and... whatever we might eventually replace the Ticos with. Probably more Burkes.
Do you think we (USA) could buy about 40 of those corvettes/frigates?
We could buy some and/or build some here, but only if you shoot enough carrier admirals.
Ah, for the heady days when John Lehmann promised us a 600-ship navy.
Edit shoot, replace "promote..."
Do you mean retire? Promotion would just embed them more solidly.
Humans are weak and easily seduced.
"Promote' is a euphemism for "get out of the way."
The German version might make for a good Coast Guard cutter. A U.S.N. version of this might look like:
1 Mk 110
2 x 21 cell RAM
rotating EASR with SEWIP Blk II or Blk II Lite
2 x 4 NSM
2 Mk 38 mod II or IV
and the MH-60
No, buy them just like they are and do not let the Navy change anything. Otherwise we will end up with a 3000 ton ship 10 years from now that sort of looks like the original.
And have a ship ther can’t communicate or coordinate or resupoly with our own shis?
We can communicate with Israel military now, and we can go back in and update the comm suite as needed. But the US Navy has shown they cannot leave well enough alone. We have gone from 85% the same as the base ship for Constellation to 15%. Zumwalts kept changing till they got so expensive we only got 3. This happens over and over.
And even those three *aren't the same as each other*.
You actually solved none of those 3 issues with your solution there that appeared to be taking a crack at one issue.
Also, stop pushing the 85% commonality lie. That was never reality, just the lie.
There was never 85% commonality
No bow sonar
No raised stealth deck
Different gun
Heavier, larger, and more VLS
Different deck house with larger 3 fixed panel radar.
Different ECM
Different decoys
Different ASM
Different, larger gensets
Fixed not controllable pitch props
Different helo haul down and helo reqs
Different CIWS
Different point defense guns
Different combat system
Different EO/IR
We don't have to do napkin math to see there was never any 85%
85% was the stated goal at the start. There is so little left of the original design at this point that a clean sheet would have maxed as much since. The point was to take an existing design, make the minimum changes required to meet US requirements, and put it in production. This was not done.
Good work for them. Small ships, based on the German Braunschweig-class corvettes. Not much for sea-keeping or range, but the Israeli Navy doesn’t have the same need the US Navy does for range.
Poor sea-keeping? For the North Sea (the original Braunschweigs, anyway?)
Considerably more weapons and electronics topside on the Sa’ar 6 than the parent German design, so less of an ability to take sea damage.
So have ours... Radar-controlled Mk 110, 2 RAM launchers, 16 NSMs, and either the helicopter OR Standard/quad pack ESSM?
The Sa'ar-6 does pack a wallop.
Its good for what they think they need it for.
Andy: Guarding Israel's off-shore gas fields was Israel's main motivation for the Sa'ar 6.
Yep. Nice to see they have this flexibility.
What? A small, lethal littoral warship?! I wonder how they did that!
NAVSEA was unavailable for consulting
Probably not insisting it do 45+ knots has something to do with that.
I imagine being built in warship facilities to warship standards, as I understand it from Wikipedia (yes, I know, but going to the original sources helps cut down on the BS), was also a factor.
When your very existence is at stake you make sure your weapons work.
Maybe they talked to the Coast Guard...
Three cheers for the Israeli Navy.
My question is why was there anything left for them to destroy after all the bombs we dropped on Yemen. By now Yemen should have been a parking lot.
Excellent. I hope J-3 is paying attention.
Israeli competence is indisputable. Sadly, we face implacable, irredentist islamist ideology.
We have rational goals, count human life as valuable. The other side does neither.
Whack a mole...until the root of the weed is killed.
They don't appear to carry any ground attack weapons. What did they use against the Houthi targets?
If we believe the report in Israel Today...
"The Israeli naval strike on Yemen's Port of Hodeidah was carried out by a ship that launched two precision sea-to-land missiles from hundreds of kilometers away..."
The RGM-84L-4 model Harpoon Block II's allegedly can be configured for ground attack, so I would guess those. 70NM works out to about 130km.
"...launched two precision sea-to-land missiles from hundreds of kilometers away..."
Two?
All that effort for "Two" missiles?
I'm going to be the killjoy here as all you Navy types bask in the reflected glory of the IDF. Seems they might be infected with the same rivalry that infects us. eg wanting the coach to send them into the game with expensive toys. I don't know what munitions they used or what the AF drops, but a Mark 84 2,000 pounder with a $30k JDAM kit hits a lot harder than a 7 figure, long range missile.
good Navy PR though :)
ps: Saar 6's, nice ships. we should be so lucky...
That's a valid counterpoint. But I'd offer a counter-counterpoint that the cost of that Mk84 would include the cost of a very long-range air strike, tying up considerable expensive assets (especially Israel's small number of air-refueling tankers) and flying into airspace whos AA has been demonstrated to be not entirely toothless.
Now, the obvious counter-counter-counterpoint (er....) is that those ships are also expensive assets. But while the IAF is probably fairly well occupied right now with the Iran and Gaza threat axes, the Israeli Navy is probably less heavily tasked. And the Sa'ar is also better equipped to defend itself from the level of threat the Houthis pose, overall.
Also, the benefit of some real-world live-fire exercise shouldn't be discounted. I wonder if the Israelis were expecting/hoping for a chance to exercise their shipboard AA against live missiles.
Before getting into the comment. Wiki's list of kit is wrong. Its 40 C-dome, 16 Barak-8, and if you look they have only set it up for 8 ASMs. They also swapped spots for the Typhoon guns and decoy launchers from the original model. 40 Tamirs weigh about the same as 21 RAM Blk II as do the 16 Barak 8. About the same AAW load as the German corvettes they are based upon.
You may recall that our FMS folks, with a big assist from LMC and a few retired flags, pushed hard on the Israelis to buy a Freedom Class variant to replace the Sa’ar 5’s that were built at Ingalls.
Same story with the Saudis who eventually went with a Navantia design corvette.
HII tried with an NSC variant, the Patrol Frigate but absent any support from USN, that effort went nowhere.
The IN was not convinced that the USG financial support that came with an LCS selection was worth the risk. Smart move…
Always confuse the enemy by attacking from another front. They have to look both ways now the air and sea.
I imagine they had little to no warning prior to impact as well.
That would be quite a wake-up...
D. James: Israel gave advance public notice to Yemenite civilians that an attack was imminent and the ports were the target.
weren't there several USN DDG's within range for months already?
What complicated the Houthi sentry duty?
The latest Sa'ar-class ships were built in Germany, as have been Israel's diesel subs. Israel is actively expanding its domestic ship building capability. Israel builds its own Shaldag patrol boats, which it also exports to other countries. I think Israel is building its next Sa-ar ship in Israel and has 6 of the newer Sa'ar-class ships, which were developed to protect Israel's off-shore gas fields, and also, to deal deal with regional maritime and coastal threats from Syria, among other places.
The Sa'ar is also an LCS. A Littoral Capable Ship.
Ugh. That thing out-guns a Constellation FFG.
Not remotely. 56 SAMS of 2 types vs Connie with 3. 21 RAM, 32 VLS which could easily be 32 ESSM with 24 SM-2 for instance. Plus Connie has 2 aviation assets and 16 ASMs vs the actual fitted 8 of Sa'ar 6.
All true but, 76mm>57mm. We could have done better.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here -- the 57mm isn't necessarily a bad choice (I know, this puts me in a distinct minority here). For a "littoral" ship that's liable to spend time within reach of massed Shahed-class drone swarms, my preference would be for the smallest, most rapid-firing gun I can mount that can fire VT-type rounds and reach out to the horizon (plus 5-10%). The smaller rounds give me larger magazine capacity, and the smaller mount lets me allocate weight and space to (IMO) more vital assets.
This does give away punch vs other ships, or land targets, but trying to have *everything* is a major reason why the Connie is currently overweight, overbudget, and overschedule. In the current threat environment, for the Connies I would personally prioritize mass cheap subsonic drone swarms over ship-v-ship or shore bombardment, alongside some degree of higher-tier anti-air (supersonic AShMs) and some reasonable anti-sub capability. That's based on assuming the Connies are being used in littoral or convoy-escort roles, or as bolstering escorts for heavier surface groups alongside Burkes and... whatever we might eventually replace the Ticos with. Probably more Burkes.
Our VLS can sling a bigger missile than Sylver. I'll take our weapon mix any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
So far I think the Navy would be better off building WWII DEs with modern weapons than frigates.
The admirals can't seem to build something simple that works. Let alone something new and complicated.
We only have the Ford because we had to have new carriers. Even if it took 10 years to active status.