In an earlier post we gave an illustration of what we wished to see in a future frigate for the Royal Navy.
Today we will look at what might be a suitable replacement for the American Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.
The above illustration applies existing American weapon and sensor systems to our "Falkland class frigate" template.
Such as the 5 inch (127mm) Mark 45 Mod 4 gun.
The MH 60R Seahawk.
Multi Function Towed Array AN/SQR 20.
All guns and missiles cover most bearings abeam of the ship,a narrow arc on the bow is covered by missiles,5" gun and a single Phalanx/SeaRam and a narrow arc on the stern is covered only by missiles and a single Phalanx/SeaRam but all weapons can be brought to bear on any bearing with a minimum of manoeuvering.
All guns and missiles cover most bearings abeam of the ship,a narrow arc on the bow is covered by missiles,5" gun and a single Phalanx/SeaRam and a narrow arc on the stern is covered only by missiles and a single Phalanx/SeaRam but all weapons can be brought to bear on any bearing with a minimum of manoeuvering.
Other systems might include the Converteam Advanced Induction Motor.
All of these systems are "off the shelf" or made to order non developmental items.
The only thing which needs to be designed from scratch is a new hull to put those systems in,as the British can afford to design a new 6,850 tonne frigate,it is difficult to see why the United States' Navy could not do the same.
They could even share the Royal Navy's design (though the current design needs more work,note the poor firing arcs of the Phalanx).
They could even share the Royal Navy's design (though the current design needs more work,note the poor firing arcs of the Phalanx).
The end result might be a frigate looking a little like this.
The configurable deck mentioned above is a flat load bearing area with access to the sea or pierside.
It may be enclosed or open.
It has connections for communications,power,potable and waste water services.
Items may be secured here by means of tie downs built in to the deck,bolts or welds.
Although it will be most often used as a location for boats and davits,the configurable deck can carry many other items including mines,mine hunting equipment,vehicles,submersibles,accommodation,stores,cruise missiles,sensors or any other mission specific equipment which the frigate may be required to carry either temporarily or permanently.
The unusual location of the Magazine Torpedo Launch System (an alternative to the Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes found on American ships) is based on the principle of,as far as is practical,keeping ordnance towards the extremities of the hull for damage control purposes as well as allowing a simple arrangement of torpedoes stored facing for'ard but launching on each beam.
That location was originally conceived as a suitable place for heavyweight torpedoes,which are not commonly carried by modern surface combatants.
A proposed American "light frigate":
ReplyDeletehttp://cgblog.org/2011/07/29/new-lcsopc-design/comment-page-1/#comment-14998
Bit of an odd question, I dont suppose you happen to know the foot print of an MK41 VLS do you?
ReplyDeleteI know the depth, but I cant for the life of me find the deck space they cover.
Hello Chuck Hill,
ReplyDeletethat is an interesting development,I may write something about that in future.
GrandLogistics.
Hello TheRaging Tory,
ReplyDeletethere are lots of dimensions here:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf
GrandLogistics.
My current favourite idea for a "value" frigate is a hybrid of the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt class. Basically the weapons and helicopter of the former on top of the engine fit of the latter. Though the extra pair of diesels would eat into the internal space there would be still more remaining back aft than most ships of that size for towed and variable depth sonar handling.
ReplyDeleteMy Idea of a frigate for the US Navy would be to take the Features of the Formidable class frigate, La Fayette class frigate, Valour class frigate and from the De Zeven Provinciën class frigate. I would look into a Multi Role frigate that has the capability to go into a littoral environment and has room to carry a company sized marine unit.
ReplyDeleteThough not a frigate, I drew up a low-end destroyer complement to the Burke class based on the Gibbs & Cox entry into the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer program. It has an Absalon-like flex deck beneath the flight deck and hangar, and uses some DDG-1000 components.
ReplyDeleteLittoral Warfare Destroyer
Here is the original G&C version for reference,
G&C Evolved Burke AWD
Breaking News!
ReplyDeleteAs Per Forces Goal 2030 Bangladesh Navy Plans to build 16 High Performance Frigate Based on Chinese Type O54A Frigate at
Chittagong Dry Dock Limited. For More cilik on Bangladesh Navy
What kind of vls capacity are we talking about here?
ReplyDeleteHello Unknown,
ReplyDeleteyour simple question does not have a simple answer.
As guided weapons are expensive,and hence few in number,it is a sound policy to keep them in a Vertical Launch System (V.L.S.) where they may be of some use when needed rather than in a warehouse where they may not.
Therefore the capacity of a fleet's Vertical Launch Systems should be scaled to accommodate the missile stockpile which the fleet can afford to maintain.
However that leaves the problem of deciding how much money should be spent on missiles and how much on other things such as ships and Vertical Launch Systems.
There is no simple answer to that question.
A nation might choose to maintain a large fleet of warships in peace time with a small weapon stockpile if it's missile production capacity is greater than it's ship building capacity,or vice versa.
If the missile stockpile available to a fleet in war time is larger than that which it has in peace time then it is also sensible to have excess capacity in a Vertical Launch System to accommodate war time weapon loads.
That said,the number of weapons required by any given ship is simply not calculable,though it is common to see people try.
A ship operating on it's own may have to fire more missiles,in defence or attack against any given opponent than one operating as part of a larger force.
However,the ship operating on it's own is more likely to be deployed in areas where it faces lesser threats than the ship operating as part of a larger force.
There is no way of knowing how many ships,submarines or aircraft the enemy is going to attack with,nor how many attacks they shall make,nor how many shall be destroyed by other assets before coming within range of any given warship.
There is no way of knowing how many weapons shall be launched in each attack,nor how many shall come within range of any given warship,nor how many shall malfunction,be decoyed or shot down by other systems such as our proposed Five and a Half Inch Naval Gun or Stand Alone Defensive System.
In a single engagement,a Daring Class Destroyer may detect forty-eight incoming sea skimming missiles as they cross it's radar horizon and identify,track,engage and destroy every one of them before they hit their target.
That is,providing each of it's own missiles attains a kill probability of one,but there is no way of knowing if that would be the case.
Test scenarios may predict it,but there are many more variables in real world engagements.
Even past engagements may not be used to predict the kill probability of future engagements as variables such as improvements in the enemy's or the ships own weapons may change the kill probability significantly.
The whole subject is a matter of opinion rather than science.
That said,improvements in defensive missiles generate the need for more offensive missiles,and vice versa,therefore the need for more of one tends to be accompanied by the need for less of the other.
Notwithstanding any of the above,a thirty-two cell Vertical Launch System has the capacity to carry eight Tomahawk land attack and anti-ship missiles,eight ASROC anti-submarine missiles,eight Standard anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles and thirty-two Evolved Sea Sparrow anti-aircraft missiles which might be a reasonable minimum load for a small surface combatant.
Double that capacity might be more useful but there is no way of knowing if it is worth the sacrifices elsewhere.
Fortunately,the enemy is faced with the very same problem.
Grand Logistics.