Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 4  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 »

SSC hull
LCS-1 Derivative  17%  [ 4 ]
LCS-2 Derivative  17%  [ 4 ]
HII Patrol Frigate Concept  8%  [ 2 ]
KDX-2/KFX  4%  [ 1 ]
Bazan class  13%  [ 3 ]
Nansen class  17%  [ 4 ]
Clean Sheet  21%  [ 5 ]
Other  4%  [ 1 ]
Total votes: 24
Author Message
Philbob
Post subject: US Navy Small Surface CombatantPosted: May 10th, 2014, 4:46 am
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
With there now being alot of talk for a new Frigate the SSC for the US Navy I was wondering what people here though the best option would be.

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: US Navy Small Surface CombatantPosted: May 10th, 2014, 5:24 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
With The radar capability The F110 concept based on The Norwegian frigate With improved radar and enclosed RHIB bay. I Think IT would be similar but with US Navy own design as The diference. Not so much bigger, perhaps an half meter wider for giving Place for two helicoptets and Space for future helicopters


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bscottgreene
Post subject: Re: US Navy Small Surface CombatantPosted: May 13th, 2014, 3:43 pm
Offline
Posts: 1
Joined: May 13th, 2014, 3:33 pm
I believe the KDX-2A is exactly what the navy needs. It is a mature design built to or easily modified to US Navy damage control standards, uses Aegis, American weapons, and even American propulsion systems. Also displacement is roughly 4500 tons, much smaller than the Nansen or Bazan class making them more affordable. Even if you were to build the LCS-1 variant, you would still have a ship built to lesser damage control standards and thus vulnerable. The patrol frigate by HII is a nice idea but it to is not built to navy survivability standards. By the time you modified either of those designs enough to operate in a high threat environment, the costs would soar to unaffordable proportions. So work with our allies, South Korea to build a licensed version of the KDX-2A here in the US.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: US Navy Small Surface CombatantPosted: May 13th, 2014, 5:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Philbob wrote:
With there now being alot of talk for a new Frigate the SSC for the US Navy I was wondering what people here though the best option would be.
Define the mission, then define the systems, then define the hull.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: US Navy Small Surface CombatantPosted: May 13th, 2014, 7:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4126
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
TimothyC wrote:
Philbob wrote:
With there now being a lot of talk for a new Frigate the SSC for the US Navy I was wondering what people here though the best option would be.
Define the mission, then define the systems, then define the hull.
Also maybe define budgetary limits.
This way you can always come out with something the customer does not want, the politician love, because it was cheap, and then it will be redesigned, bigger and more expensive, like it was supposed to from start ( a case in point will be the Royal Navy Type 42 AAW destroyers)

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bsmart
Post subject: Re: US Navy Small Surface CombatantPosted: May 13th, 2014, 7:42 pm
Offline
Posts: 33
Joined: February 24th, 2014, 2:59 pm
TimothyC wrote:
Define the mission, then define the systems, then define the hull.
So pretty much the exact opposite way that we got the LCS. Lockheed Martin has shown some LCS-1 derivatives that might have some legs. Really, we needed a new minesweeper and a small surface combatant.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: US Navy Small Surface CombatantPosted: May 13th, 2014, 8:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
and you need a purpose build frigate not an modified LCS.... for if US get frigate, they can free up destroyers so they can do the task they was supposed to do.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: US Navy Small Surface CombatantPosted: May 14th, 2014, 2:58 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
First, this post might seem confrentational - it is a bit, but only to get people thinking. I'm not trying to insult anyone or make anyone angry.
bsmart wrote:
TimothyC wrote:
Define the mission, then define the systems, then define the hull.
So pretty much the exact opposite way that we got the LCS. Lockheed Martin has shown some LCS-1 derivatives that might have some legs. Really, we needed a new minesweeper and a small surface combatant.
Ok, Minewarfare is a good mission. How are we going to do minesweeping? Also, what is the mission of a "small surface combatant" (I'm not knocking the idea, but it helps if everyone is on the same page as we discuss this).
heuhen wrote:
and you need a purpose build frigate not an modified LCS.... for if US get frigate, they can free up destroyers so they can do the task they was supposed to do.
What is the mission that you think dictates a frigate?

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Philbob
Post subject: Re: US Navy Small Surface CombatantPosted: May 15th, 2014, 2:35 am
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
bscottgreene wrote:
I believe the KDX-2A is exactly what the navy needs. It is a mature design built to or easily modified to US Navy damage control standards, uses Aegis, American weapons, and even American propulsion systems. Also displacement is roughly 4500 tons, much smaller than the Nansen or Bazan class making them more affordable. Even if you were to build the LCS-1 variant, you would still have a ship built to lesser damage control standards and thus vulnerable. The patrol frigate by HII is a nice idea but it to is not built to navy survivability standards. By the time you modified either of those designs enough to operate in a high threat environment, the costs would soar to unaffordable proportions. So work with our allies, South Korea to build a licensed version of the KDX-2A here in the US.
Iam in total agreement.

I appoligize for not putting down any mission or bugetary information... lets say same role as current FFG-7 as when they were introduced budget not to excede 1.2 billion

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bsmart
Post subject: Re: US Navy Small Surface CombatantPosted: May 16th, 2014, 12:33 pm
Offline
Posts: 33
Joined: February 24th, 2014, 2:59 pm
TimothyC wrote:
Ok, Minewarfare is a good mission. How are we going to do minesweeping?
With a purpose built ship, not shoehorning it into another ship where it doesn't make a lot of sense. A small purpose built minesweeper, minimal self defense capability, RAM launcher and perhaps a 30mm gun.
Quote:
Also, what is the mission of a "small surface combatant" (I'm not knocking the idea, but it helps if everyone is on the same page as we discuss this).
ASW, local air defense, surface combat. Mostly I think the US has an issue right now where our options are to either send in a $2 billion dollar Arleigh Burke or a Carrier Battle Group. There's nothing below a Burke. Well you don't always need a platform armed with Standard missiles and Tomahawks. A ship with a 5" gun, maybe 32 tactical length VLS cells, 8 Harpoons on deck, and the ability to carry two helicopters. If you really, really want to have the flexibility maybe split things up, 16 tac and 16 strike length VLS cells so carrying Tomahawks isn't out of the question. A ship you can hopefully build for $750 million to a billion each.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 4  [ 31 posts ]  Return to “Off Topic” | Go to page 1 2 3 4 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]