Shipbucket

don't mention the Brits sending down one of it's old destroyers for the same mission, or even we in Norway sending an frigate for hunting pirates in Somalia. would be better for Norway to use an Skjold class there.

I think the main reason for using an large combatant for such a mission, is due the crew size, the can better hold out on long range mission than an small RHIB. but a Harpoon in the face of pirates and narcotic.... is always the best way.

Colombamike wrote:

sabotage181 wrote:that's all the USS Virginia did for it's last three years of life... Nuclear powered guided missile cruiser chasing down drug runners. If Columbia Mike thinks this ship is over gunned for that operation what's he think about that??? Well, at least they didn't have to pay for fuel

Thiel wrote:You use what you have. If we custom designed ships for each mission then we'd find ourselves in seriously deep water the day we need to do something else. If that means chasing drug runners in a nuclear powered cruiser then so be it. It beats providing air defence with a patrol boat.

U.S NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

This is out of USS Mississippi's (CGN-40) 1992-1993 cruise book.

A coast guard admiral presented our crew with a photo doctored to make the Virginia look like it was painted in coast guard colors. It was pretty awesome.

Here's a news story the local Norfolk station did about Virginia doing CONOPS....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoUa5Ms ... ata_player

BRINGS BACK THE MEMORIES

Colombamike wrote:

sabotage181 wrote:that's all the USS Virginia did for it's last three years of life... Nuclear powered guided missile cruiser chasing down drug runners. If Columbia Mike thinks this ship is over gunned for that operation what's he think about that??? Well, at least they didn't have to pay for fuel

Thiel wrote:You use what you have. If we custom designed ships for each mission then we'd find ourselves in seriously deep water the day we need to do something else. If that means chasing drug runners in a nuclear powered cruiser then so be it. It beats providing air defence with a patrol boat.

U.S NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

Yes, wave that inane GIF around some more why don't you. And while you do it explain to me how you would have done it with the assets available to the USN in 1991-1994. By all means design a new ship, but since the Cold War only ended in 1991 you only got a few months to find a suitable design, get the funding approved, build it and commission it.
You're also welcome to move units around, but remember that every ship you remove from somewhere else means that you have to sacrifice whatever mission they were doing there.
Honestly, I'm quite curious how you'd go about it.
Oh and transferring ships from the Coast Guard isn't an option, and neither is transferring the mission. They were already working at full capacity.

Another useful and thoughtful topic derailed. Color me surprised.

I agree with CM that the USN has definetly failed in the procurement of small less capable vessels for low impact missions to capitalize on the peace dividend AT PRESENT. In 1991 we were coming out of the largest arms race in history overshadowed by the threat of super power conflict with nukes. The idea that we would be optimized for anything but that in 1991 or even a decade later is ridiculous.

In 2014, however, we should have produced something in between the PC and the DDG, however. And no, the LCS POS does not count until it actually shows it can do something.

Shipright wrote:I agree with CM that the USN has definetly failed in the procurement of small less capable vessels for low impact missions to capitalize on the peace dividend AT PRESENT. In 1991 we were coming out of the largest arms race in history overshadowed by the threat of super power conflict with nukes. The idea that we would be optimized for anything but that in 1991 or even a decade later is ridiculous.

In 2014, however, we should have produced something in between the PC and the DDG, however. And no, the LCS POS does not count until it actually shows it can do something.

Thank you all for all your comments. You al have had me completely rethinking this whole ship. I need to get back to what I was really aiming for when I fist thought of this ship. Also, the date that I put on during the original post. The ship I want will be designed in conjunction with the Burke class and put into service about the same time. CAN ANYONE TELL ME IF I CAN CHANGE THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD AS ITS CAUSED A LOT OF CONFUSION IN WHAT I'm TRYING TO DO???

Or should I simply start a new thread???

I am going to call this ship The "Capitol County Class". the first ship will be the USS Kent County FFG-62



OK, I'm thinking this would be a great little frigate. The sensor suite would be great for area defense, would it not? I have heard the uproar from the galley about having a five inch gun, and I think it is a good idea. I am going with out helo hangers, for now (possible future upgrade just as burke class). I would love to hear any feed-back on this general set-up. I think we have here cheap, capable and spamable.

And just for fun, she would look something like this in real life...


This ship would be USS Henrico County FFG-72

for changing title name. not sure, but try to edit the first post...

heuhen wrote:for changing title name. not sure, but try to edit the first post...

That seems to have done it. Thank you heuhen

I donn't know if I like the primary sensor placement. It has a massive cutout forward which would put it at a serious disadvantage if it is a screen oriented towards a threat axis.