US Navy Frigates
Posted: 04 Nov 2017 20:51
The US Navy has got back on board with the need for a frigate.
The retirement of the FFG7 or Oliver Hazard Perry Class ships has exposed a few major flaws with the Navy's thinking, in particular that the so-called Littoral Combat Ship can ever be capable in combat. Designed to face a singular threat, operations in shallow and confined waters against fast moving small attack craft, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards iconic 'Boghammer' boats, they have struggled in simulations against more capable, open ocean foes.
The two classes of aluminium ships are large, fast and capable of consuming a vast amount of fuel doing so, but don't bring a whole lot of firepower to the fight. Something the Navy realised and attempted to rectify. Unfortunately the attempt to up-gun the LCS classes has proved to be an expensive and somewhat painful exercise.
The painful realisation that both classes of LCS don't deliver anywhere near the capability of the Perry class, the Navy's last frigate class, has reopened a discussion between Navy and Industry for a new design of frigate for the Navy.
The U.S. Navy has released the first formal requirements for a proposed new frigate design, which it is now referring to as Guided Missile Frigate Replacement Program or FFG(X). A key component of these new ships is what is described as a 'robust' area air defense capability.
Navy is looking at what are, by it's standards, some very agressive timeframes to begin a frigate program, in part driven by the Trump Administration's desire to increase the size of the Navy in the face of today's threats. China and to lesser degree Russia are starting to challenge the Navy's sea dominance capabilities. and to counter those challenges the Navy needs new and far more capable ships.
The emphasis is on existing designs that can be modified to meet the Navy's needs, rather starting with a clean sheet of paper design, which has theoretically opened up the contest to international bidders.
In order to meet these mission requirements, there are 11 “desired” systems prospective vendors will want to assure make it into their proposals. The most important by far is the inclusion of an undefined “self defense launcher” in the final design. The Navy specifically said it was interested in available “trade space” for a system that could potentially launch the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) and the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2). The most obvious choice would be an array of Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) cells somewhere on the ship. These can accommodate single SM-2s or quad-packed ESSMs. Using a VLS array for the self defense launcher requirement could have the potential to supplement or even replace the containerized anti-ship missile requirement, too. The Navy’s request specifically asks for vendors to mention if they can include “strike length” cells in the self defense launcher.
This would be a major capability upgrade over the existing LCS. Even the up-gunned LCS concept, also known as the Small Surface Combatant (SSC), lacked any real air defense capability, making it effectively a sitting duck in almost any real combat scenario, despite adding $70 million to the ship's price tag.
The other 10 desirable systems for the notional FFG(X) include the COMBATSS-21 battle management system, a three-face fixed array Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), the SLQ-32(V)6 electronic warfare suite, two four-round canisters with over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles, a SeaRAM self-defense system, the Mk 53 Nulka anti-missile decoy system, and more. There should be space on each FFG(X) for at least one MH-60R multi-mission helicopter, as well as an MQ-8C Fire Scout drone or similarly-sized unmanned aircraft, too.
On top of all that, there is an entire second tier of equipment that would add even more functionality. There 14 systems in this category, such as AN/SLQ-61 Light Weight Tow (LWT) and AN/SLQ-62 Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) linked together with the centerpiece AN/SQQ-89F underwater warfare system, the Mk 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile, Longbow Hellfire capability, and other radars and sensors.
Together, these systems would address many of the existing LCS’s deficiencies, which prevent them from independently operating in even low-threat environments at present. Equipped for its main functions, the new FFG(X) would be able to seamlessly integrate into larger task groups, including aircraft carrier strike groups and amphibious expeditionary strike groups, as well as provide escort for logistics convoys and other formations. The ships should have weapons and equipment that complement and enhance the existing anti-ship, air defense, and electronic warfare capabilities of those groupings.
As an independent surface combatant, the frigates would be able to operate in low to medium threat environments, hunting submarines and taking on other surface ships under certain conditions, as well as performing less intensive security cooperation and humanitarian assistance missions as necessary. The second tier of possible equipment includes provisions for two rigid hull inflatable boats, which could help the ship support anti-smuggling and special operations support missions, as well.
The FFG(X) should be able to travel at least 3,000 miles at a cruising speed of at least 16 knots, while being able to sustain a speed of least 28 knots during combat.
While lip service is being paid to foreign designs, with the Spanish F100 and franco-Italian FREMM being mentioned (though given the F100 comes with AEGIS it's already halfway to a Burke capability) most seasoned observers in Washington believe the competition will come down to two contenders, the heavily modified Freedom Class LCS that Saudi Arabia is buying, or the military version of the Coast Guard's Berthholf class National Security Cutter.
[youtubehd]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_wusP9gBvs[/youtubehd]
This one still has a long way to go, even the Pentagon's 'fast track' programs take what can seem like forever, but there is a likelyhood that the US Navy will develop a spiritual successor to the FFG Class that for several decades heped define the Navy during the Cold War and the hot peace that followed.
Not before time either.
Mike
The retirement of the FFG7 or Oliver Hazard Perry Class ships has exposed a few major flaws with the Navy's thinking, in particular that the so-called Littoral Combat Ship can ever be capable in combat. Designed to face a singular threat, operations in shallow and confined waters against fast moving small attack craft, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards iconic 'Boghammer' boats, they have struggled in simulations against more capable, open ocean foes.
The two classes of aluminium ships are large, fast and capable of consuming a vast amount of fuel doing so, but don't bring a whole lot of firepower to the fight. Something the Navy realised and attempted to rectify. Unfortunately the attempt to up-gun the LCS classes has proved to be an expensive and somewhat painful exercise.
The painful realisation that both classes of LCS don't deliver anywhere near the capability of the Perry class, the Navy's last frigate class, has reopened a discussion between Navy and Industry for a new design of frigate for the Navy.
The U.S. Navy has released the first formal requirements for a proposed new frigate design, which it is now referring to as Guided Missile Frigate Replacement Program or FFG(X). A key component of these new ships is what is described as a 'robust' area air defense capability.
Navy is looking at what are, by it's standards, some very agressive timeframes to begin a frigate program, in part driven by the Trump Administration's desire to increase the size of the Navy in the face of today's threats. China and to lesser degree Russia are starting to challenge the Navy's sea dominance capabilities. and to counter those challenges the Navy needs new and far more capable ships.
The emphasis is on existing designs that can be modified to meet the Navy's needs, rather starting with a clean sheet of paper design, which has theoretically opened up the contest to international bidders.
In order to meet these mission requirements, there are 11 “desired” systems prospective vendors will want to assure make it into their proposals. The most important by far is the inclusion of an undefined “self defense launcher” in the final design. The Navy specifically said it was interested in available “trade space” for a system that could potentially launch the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) and the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2). The most obvious choice would be an array of Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) cells somewhere on the ship. These can accommodate single SM-2s or quad-packed ESSMs. Using a VLS array for the self defense launcher requirement could have the potential to supplement or even replace the containerized anti-ship missile requirement, too. The Navy’s request specifically asks for vendors to mention if they can include “strike length” cells in the self defense launcher.
This would be a major capability upgrade over the existing LCS. Even the up-gunned LCS concept, also known as the Small Surface Combatant (SSC), lacked any real air defense capability, making it effectively a sitting duck in almost any real combat scenario, despite adding $70 million to the ship's price tag.
The other 10 desirable systems for the notional FFG(X) include the COMBATSS-21 battle management system, a three-face fixed array Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), the SLQ-32(V)6 electronic warfare suite, two four-round canisters with over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles, a SeaRAM self-defense system, the Mk 53 Nulka anti-missile decoy system, and more. There should be space on each FFG(X) for at least one MH-60R multi-mission helicopter, as well as an MQ-8C Fire Scout drone or similarly-sized unmanned aircraft, too.
On top of all that, there is an entire second tier of equipment that would add even more functionality. There 14 systems in this category, such as AN/SLQ-61 Light Weight Tow (LWT) and AN/SLQ-62 Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) linked together with the centerpiece AN/SQQ-89F underwater warfare system, the Mk 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile, Longbow Hellfire capability, and other radars and sensors.
Together, these systems would address many of the existing LCS’s deficiencies, which prevent them from independently operating in even low-threat environments at present. Equipped for its main functions, the new FFG(X) would be able to seamlessly integrate into larger task groups, including aircraft carrier strike groups and amphibious expeditionary strike groups, as well as provide escort for logistics convoys and other formations. The ships should have weapons and equipment that complement and enhance the existing anti-ship, air defense, and electronic warfare capabilities of those groupings.
As an independent surface combatant, the frigates would be able to operate in low to medium threat environments, hunting submarines and taking on other surface ships under certain conditions, as well as performing less intensive security cooperation and humanitarian assistance missions as necessary. The second tier of possible equipment includes provisions for two rigid hull inflatable boats, which could help the ship support anti-smuggling and special operations support missions, as well.
The FFG(X) should be able to travel at least 3,000 miles at a cruising speed of at least 16 knots, while being able to sustain a speed of least 28 knots during combat.
While lip service is being paid to foreign designs, with the Spanish F100 and franco-Italian FREMM being mentioned (though given the F100 comes with AEGIS it's already halfway to a Burke capability) most seasoned observers in Washington believe the competition will come down to two contenders, the heavily modified Freedom Class LCS that Saudi Arabia is buying, or the military version of the Coast Guard's Berthholf class National Security Cutter.
[youtubehd]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_wusP9gBvs[/youtubehd]
This one still has a long way to go, even the Pentagon's 'fast track' programs take what can seem like forever, but there is a likelyhood that the US Navy will develop a spiritual successor to the FFG Class that for several decades heped define the Navy during the Cold War and the hot peace that followed.
Not before time either.
Mike