SECDEF Talks About New Frigate to Follow LCS

[NakedWeasel]

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's decision to stop building the current class of coastal warships after 32 vessels and focus on ships with more firepower and protection will result in higher costs, U.S. defense officials said on Monday.

Hagel announced the decision during a preview of the Pentagon's fiscal 2015 budget proposal, saying that growing threats in the Asia-Pacific region in particular meant the Navy needed to develop new small surface ships that could operate "in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... me=topNews

Sounds like it's time to resurrect the Streetfighter concept...

[mikeCK]

Not sure I really understand his plan..,,is Hagel advocating that the Littoral combat ship should be cancelled at 32 and that remainder transformed into a frigate? Either way I'm all for move back to Anti ship warfare. The pendulum swung way too far towards anti air defense and land combat support and away from killing enemy ships. The new Zumwalt destroyer is incapable of mounting the obsolete harpoon missle in a box launcher and the harpoon cannot fire from the VLS. So basically, until the new LRASM gets deployed in 2015-2016, the navy's newest destroyer cannot kill am enemy ship without hitting it 100 times with a cannon .

The rest of the fleet relies on 4 pack harpoon box launchers launching a subsonic missile which has minimal ECCM and a small warhead developed in the 1970s. It's about time someone recognized that navy ships might have to attack something other than attack aircraft, land targets and rubber speedboats. A destroyer might have to actually kill an enemy warship over the horizon.

Next stop, fit the LRASM to the LA class VLS tubes for some legit long range anti ship capability. Now it's all about land attack.

It's like for the last 10 years the navy has been planning on fighting Somali pirates, taking air sorties away from B-2s and complimenting marine corp cobra helicopters

[Elouda]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK
Next stop, fit the LRASM to the LA class VLS tubes for some legit long range anti ship capability. Now it's all about land attack.

You're thinking too small.

What needs to be done is fit LRASM into the VLS on an Ohio class SSGN. That is legit anti-ship capability.

[NakedWeasel]

Amen, and amen, brother.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Elouda

ORIGINAL: mikeCK
Next stop, fit the LRASM to the LA class VLS tubes for some legit long range anti ship capability. Now it's all about land attack.

You're thinking too small.

What needs to be done is fit LRASM into the VLS on an Ohio class SSGN. That is legit anti-ship capability.

Ohio's have a 44 year lifespan so they start going on in 2025. Haven't seen much on LRASM sub integration so 5 years if its a miracle. So not very likely although Virginia's could get them if sub launched SSM's become big for the US once again.

[NakedWeasel]

Well, I'd say you are thinking a bit smallish, yourself, buddy... [;)]
What needs to be done, is follow up the RGM/UGM-109 Blk II TACTOM, with a stealthy, long-range cruise missile with an armor/bunker defeat warhead, equipped with a tri-mode seeker which is also HOJ capable, and an avionics suite which can target moving vehicles, and provide man-in-loop, two-way data link with a tactical controller from the launch platform, or in another control center. Oh, and I want it to weigh under 2000lbs, so that an F-15E, F-16C/D, F/A-18E/F, F-35A/B/C, and F-22, can carry four such weapons at least 500nm on a single load of fuel. The B-52G, B-1B, and B-2 should all be able to carry at least eight on a rotary launcher for a 2000nm combat radius.

Should be doable with a stretch version of the JASSM/LRASM. I'll call it the AGM/RGM/UGM-110 Long Range Tactical Strike Missile.

Moreover, we need to revisit the Affordable Weapon System, ( And give it a better name. ) Leverage the number of LRTSM's with a larger number of inexpensive, expendable weapons that can cruise at least 500nm to a GPS aimpoint, or home on jam, and deliver a 250lb payload- either a SDB warhead, cargo (ammo/blood/batteries etc.), or carry a recoverable RECON package. Mass produce them with off the shelf parts, and use them for everything but the highest priority missions. They could be used in massive raids with a few LRTSMs to ensure mission completion. Hell, I've even thought of using the cargo variant to deliver a single SPECOPS jumper via parachute to a target. (Sucks to be him, but they're well-paid volunteers, right? [:D])

An imagination is indeed a terrible thing to waste...

[jtoatoktoe]

Putting a LRASM into a Sub shouldn't be that difficult......I'm sure the size specs aren't that much different from The Tomahawk as they both are VLS not to mention Tomahawk can launch out of Torpedo Tubes as well.

[mikeCK]

Well, it's all hypothetical since right now, the only way a US destroyer or cruiser can sink an enemy ship is to launch it's 8 harpoons from "glued on" box launchers and hope that 2 or 3 make it through so the enemy ship will be damaged

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: jtoatoktoe

Putting a LRASM into a Sub shouldn't be that difficult......I'm sure the size specs aren't that much different from The Tomahawk as they both are VLS not to mention Tomahawk can launch out of Torpedo Tubes as well.

Not worried about integration as much as how the US finds targets in the future. Lot of this stuff was thought up in an era where the US was likely to have sensor and air superiority. It may not be true in the future.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Well, it's all hypothetical since right now, the only way a US destroyer or cruiser can sink an enemy ship is to launch it's 8 harpoons from "glued on" box launchers and hope that 2 or 3 make it through so the enemy ship will be damaged

Will only get worse as the Harpoon service lives come to an end.

[Mgellis]

In terms of designing the ship for Command, this source might be helpful...

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... -ship.html

The middle ship, 118 meters, is about the same size as the LCS. As you can see, this version is fitted with the short range SAMs, the two 30-mm. guns, 8 Harpoons (or similar missiles), and a 4- or 8-cell missile launcher (Hellfires?) behind the 57-mm. (?) gun. And it looks like the two 30-mm. guns could be replaced with a multi-cell missile launcher of some kind (more Hellfires?)

Anyway, it's an interesting image.

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Well, it's all hypothetical since right now, the only way a US destroyer or cruiser can sink an enemy ship is to launch it's 8 harpoons from "glued on" box launchers and hope that 2 or 3 make it through so the enemy ship will be damaged

Will only get worse as the Harpoon service lives come to an end.

Well, in reality, it did come to an end... There is just no alternative until LRASM is fielded in 2015. They just keep "upgrading" the software. In the end, it's slow, short-ranged and underpowered. It makes a good air launched anti ship missile. the navy spent waaaaay too much effort in land attack and forgot they may have to fight an enemy navy

[NakedWeasel]

They also let ASW go to the wayside as well. Retiring the S-3 without a replacement was an unforgivable error. I've always wanted to test an ASW loadout with a Super Hornet, just to see if was doable. Something similar to the proposed ASW loadout of the Flanker. Centerline pod for sonobouys and MAD, Mk46/Mk54s on the wings. Low and slow wouldn't be fuel efficient for a Hornet, but without any fixed wing ASW interdiction capability, it'd probably be better than nothing.

[NakedWeasel]

As a replacement for a frigate, I'd stay with the LCS hull, and just put VLS into the aft hanger space. Plenty of room there for the tactical length tubes. If a slightly bigger hull was needed, I'd probably go with an Americanized Absalon-class type of ship with dedicated ASW/ASuW facilities and equipment.

There's plenty of advanced, stealthy, frigate-sized ships in the world these days. This really shouldn't be a difficult issue.

[Apocal]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

They also let ASW go to the wayside as well. Retiring the S-3 without a replacement was an unforgivable error.

S-3s were never a reliable ASW platform. The problems with reliability couldn't be fixed so they just scrapped the capability entirely. Not that it matters much, we have more than enough P-3s and aren't going to be duking it out against Chinese subs in the middle of the Pacific like we expected with Soviet subs in the Atlantic.

[mikeCK]

Problem is a frigate really needs a pad for a helo for ASW if it is going to properly perform picket duty or operate autonomously. Will the LCS platform have room to two helos and a VLS system? Maybe go back to the old dual launch rack...of course.
You would still need magazine space.

Maybe they shrink a Zumwalt

[NakedWeasel]

The P-3's are long in the tooth, and cannot be everywhere. Helo's don't have the range, speed, or endurance necessary to prosecute distant ASW threats. Blue water ASW can occur anywhere that isn't littoral, or on land. I'm not sure what you mean about reliability- the S-3s we had aboard weren't exactly "hanger queens". If you mean their ASW capability was in question, I can't really speak to that, either- I was a snipe, not a brown shoe.

The Hoovers had multiple roles too, maritime EW surveillance, ASuW strike, land interdiction. It was also the CSG's most capable tanker. It was a capability that is missed. It was a platform that we had at our disposal, and has left a gap.

[NakedWeasel]

This is the reason why I suggested the Absalon class- she has a VERY large flight deck with hanger, (almost as much flight deck/under-deck mission space as an LCS-2), AND also sports 32 VLS tubes, AND up to 16 Harpoons. Upscale the LockMart LCS, (or even better, the LCS-2) slap a 48-cell VLS in her midships, and call it good.

It's a new frigate, not a freakin' mission to Mars...

[dillonkbase]

just wondering... could they design a smooth topped vls system that allows for the top of the vls tubes to serve as the flight deck... this wouldn't be the best for defensive weapons(which need to be immediately available), but for strike weapons where you can plan around the use of the deck it seems fine?

[Juramentado]

ORIGINAL: dillonkbase

just wondering... could they design a smooth topped vls system that allows for the top of the vls tubes to serve as the flight deck... this wouldn't be the best for defensive weapons(which need to be immediately available), but for strike weapons where you can plan around the use of the deck it seems fine?

Not a good idea. If you have a crash or a conflagration on the Flight Deck, that means an active fire directly over live munitions.