US Navy Small Surface Combatant

[Philbob]

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.

[heuhen]

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

[bscottgreene]

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.

[TimothyC]

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.

[Novice]

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)

[bsmart]

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.

[heuhen]

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.

[TimothyC]

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.

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).

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?

[Philbob]

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

[bsmart]

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.

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.