Your browser is ancient! Upgrade to a different browser or install Google Chrome Frame to experience this site. The shift has shaken up the industry, panicking some players, while others quietly reposition:. A Spanish Fclass frigate, Almirante Juan de Borbon, built by Navantia.

Other options got honorable mention from our sources. Global navies often use frigates as the mainstay of their battle line, a role the US reserves for much larger destroyers, so they pack their frigates with expensive high-end systems, especially for wide-area air defense. The US Navy wants to keep the frigate affordable, with more air defense than LCS has today but less than its scores of Aegis destroyers already on hand. No final decision has been made, but five knowledgeable sources from different backgrounds— Capitol Hill, the executive branch, industry, and academia — and with no evident connections to each other, all independently and all anonymously except for Clark told me that the Navy is seriously considering alternatives to an upgraded LCS.

Inwhen the Navy intends to award the frigate contractit could well end up buying an up-gunned Coast Guard cutter or a foreign design — assuming Congress and a protectionist president permit.

Huntington Ingalls concept for their Patrol Frigate, a militarized version of their Coast Guard National Security Cutter. While Senate Armed Services chairman John McCain has publicly pushed the Navy to consider alternatives to LCS, some legislators are already antsy.

The two Littoral Combat Ship variants, LCS-1 Freedom far and LCS-2 Independence near. The answer to Rep. The decision was made at a time when OSD was increasingly focused on high-intensity warfare against great powers — Russia and China — but the Navy still gave equal priority to global patrolling and presence in low-threat zones, hence the conflict over LCS. Since then, especially with Russian offensives in Ukraine and Syria, and especially under new Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson, the Navy has refocused on high-end threats.

Adversaries with jet aircraft and anti-ship missiles put a premium on air and missile defense, for which the current LCS largely depends on escorting Aegis destroyers.

Adversaries with well-armed surface warships put a premium on long-range anti-ship weapons, which the current LCS lacks.

The Navy, Austal, and the Marinette-Lockheed team have all worked hard to cram more of these capabilities into the current LCS hull designs, but there are limits.

The most obvious issue is sheer size: Littoral Combat Ships displace 3, to 3, tons, depending on the variant, while many foreign frigates exceed 6, tons, nearly twice as large.

Compounding the problem is that both LCS variants are optimized for speed, not carrying capacity: That made some sense for the original operating concept, which called on LCS to chase and evade high-speed fast attack boats in coastal waters, for example off Iran, at a blistering plus knots. In a major war, by contrast, the future frigate would escort aircraft carriers — which max out at plus knots — and support vessels — about 20 knots — while relying on long-range missiles, not its own speed, to catch distant targets.

Now, small ships can pack quite a punch — Norman Polmar wryly suggested the US just buy Russian designs, like the corvettes and frigate that fired cruise missiles over miles from the Caspian Sea into Syria.

But small ships with big weapons often lack endurance, because they skimp on ammunition reloads, fuel reserves, and crew size — all classic problems with Russian ships. Indeed, the militarized NSC design, the Patrol Frigate, would trade off some of that fuel supply, going down to a still-remarkable 8, nm, for additional weapons such as a tube VLS. The much larger foreign frigates can carry much more firepower: The Fincantieri FREMM has just 16 cells, same as the Patrol Frigate.

They also have sophisticated military-grade radars, sonars, and other sensors that the National Security Cutter currently lacks, although Congress might require reequipping the FREMM or Navantia with made-in-America kit.

The harder question is whether the European ships are up to US Navy standards of survivability. Lockheed has proposed larger variants of the LCS, including ones with VLS, for foreign markets. Unlike the Hill staffer, Clark is one of our five principal sources saying the Navy is serious, and the only one willing to speak on the record without conditions.

The new focus is going beyond just talk, Clark made clear: Ronald BoxallaegisalliesAustalBryan Clarkcoast guardCongressF class frigateFincantierifranceFREMM frigatefrigatesHASChouse armed services committeeHuntington-Ingallsindustrial baseItalylcslittoral combat shipMarinette MarineNational Security CutterNavantianavynavy futurenorman polmarrep.

John McCainSenate Armed Services CommitteeshipbuildingSmall Surface Combatant Task ForceSpainSSCTFvertical launch systemVLS Sign up and get Breaking Defense news in your inbox. A scaled down SPY-6, on par with the SPY-1 already on the ship, would do. Your looking at a billion dollars each, but could offset that by buying fewer Burkes. One Burke or two F If they want additional VLS capacity then replace the 5in gun with maybe 32 cell VLS, 80 VLS total. Build Fs as DDGs and Absalons as FFGs.

The Navy has said their ship fleet would include large surface combatants and 52 small surface combatants. They are also built in Spain from the same DNA, but the Nansen-class are tailored for ASW, something the USN should probably focus more on. They are a good bit smaller than the F, much smaller crew requirement.

Fewer VLS though Yea, it would probably work, just pack in more VLS by using MK 56 deck mounted system for ESSM. Could be one of the cheaper options. They are what a Frigate is meant to be and an improvement over the LSC and decent replacment of the Perry. Your avatar has our flag but you want to partner off shore! You probably drive a foreign car!! Unless it is for tank guns Germany Remote Weapons Stations Norway Machine guns Belgium Small arms Switzerland Missile seekers Britain.

You build them here numb nuts. The majority of the F is American, the radars, illuminators, sonar, the main gun, mk 41 VLS, and the engines. Its foreign hull designed with American equipment, the US would only be buying the hull design so they would not have to go through the process of a new design. When you question my patriotism because I suggest using pre engineered designs by bringing up my avatar and implying that I drive a foreign car you illustrate to me that you have a immature and childish mind.

Me calling you a numb nuts was a way to bring the conversation into you realm of thinking. Your last response was nearly illegible, it is one big run on sentence with multiple missing words. We should have used Denmarks Iver Huitfeldt design as the basis of the LSC. It was truly modular and provided two variants. We failed to learn any lessons from the Danes and truly adopt their StanFlex design for the LCS opting for a more American snafu design.

The Iver Huitfeldt design is exactly what is needed for the USN. Total over kill for a Frigate at that cost just add more Burkes and get a fully capable Suface Combatant. Wanting the world in a single ship instead of what needed with built in capability for future growth.

At this point we would be better services to unretire the Perrys and refurbish and upgrade them. My comment alluded to increasing the size of the Burkes so they will fully be cruisers. The Sejong class is a larger Burke, longer, wider, and heavier.

This opens up future growth space. Also in my comment I stated the F would become the DDGs and a much less capable ship would be the frigate. The F is overkill for a frigate but not for a destroyer. Just so there is no confusion, the Burkes in their current form would be halted and a larger CG one would be constructed in fewer numbers. One more thing, I did not state this in my original post but the CG Burke would be IEP or something similar so future high energy weapons can be integrated.

This is all great news. Make the USN great again. In short, the LCS, formerly billed as all that and a bag of chips, is NOT all that and a bag of chips. I can only surmise that common sense is starting to infect the USN planners.

Surely providing the navy with combat capability should be the central and overriding focus with employment and corporate benefits being seen as secondary by products.

No, the industrial base always factors in. But that does highlight the problem with buying both variants of LCS. Beyond the integration issues for a supposedly modular ship, how the hell did the Navy plan on keeping both yards in business in the long term? How difficult would it be to have Ingalls, Austal, and LM all building the same frigate design.

Again, I said if the money and supply line is there. It was possible to build large volumes of ship, planes, subs during WW2 because there was no international strike capability that could hit the US. A future conflict if it were not to turn nuclear would inevitability turn to bombing factories. I doubt there are missile defense systems around any ship yards or Boeing, NG or LM etc. Tensions like those with China rise over years.

All these craft need to be built NOW. To Resolve the Ending of the Second World War. Agreed may I add the way the world traveled back in the day was by ships so the infrastructure was already there.

Options, Futures and Other Derivatives - John Hull - Google Livres

An Essex class ship was was built in 16 months by 4 shipyards!! Also your wrong JJ about the US not being spied on by hues who?? If you are referring to international strike, I was alluding to bombs being dropped on factories which would knock them out of action. What RUINEd our Defense Industry was Congress and SEC allowing for these massive Defense Mergers. I was at McDonnel Douglass when they were bought. So much for free-market Capitalism, it is now basically a company monopoly.

How about these companies FUND the cost for the ships by each building one based on the DoD specs, and then the best ship wins. Corporate Welfare it certainly is, and lowlife Congresspeople who are more concerned with re-election by telling their constituents they saved some jobs in their own town, than our military. Since we have other platforms such as our Burkes, and Ticos that act as our capital ships, having a frigate based on the Legend-class NSC or one of our allies designs would make sense — a lot more sense than either of the LCS classes that simply cannot be up-armed or protected in any meaningful way without seriously compromising performance.

I think the LCS charade has continued long enough — the ultimate irony being that the USN remains without a littoral combat platform despite the designation they were given. The only issue with the NSC is the cost. Last ship was M and this is before the navy makes upgrades and changes out systems.

A frigate is meant to be built in number and at low cost m should be the target. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and their inflation calculator, m in dollars would be m today while m in last OHP commissioned dollar it would be m. Not sure which year Sons of Liberty is referencing. If we went for building a level-2 construction standard sea-frame, built it to be easily upgradable not taking the LCS routeand had relatively mundane propulsion requirements, we might be able to do that.

But this would require discipline on the part of the USN — but that is a virtue lacking in today's DoD acquisition programs. License build some German U-boats. Surface warships are horse cavalry against machine guns in the age of robots and missiles. The only scheme worth the money is a state subsidized merchant fleet of very large container ships and supertankers that can be loaded for war on short notice.

Same with the Air Force- no more warplanes: The only planes worth the money are jumbo jets that can be loaded for war on short notice. I think the submarine angle is interesting, but in my opinion subs can only deny territory — they cannot hold it like a surface combatant can. In regards to drones, I think drones are an unsafe bet right now. But that is the point…. When they come within a couple hundreds miles of anything capable of launching an anti-ship missile, be it an aircraft, submarine, truck on shore, or a cheap militarized cargo ship- they will be destroyed.

The frigate is not going to shoot down a squadron of planes a couple hundred miles away, or sink a submarine a couple hundred miles away, a blow up a truck a couple hundred miles a way on land. And if it is a large container ship as in over feet long and carrying a couple thousand ballistic containers as armor then it will take far more punishment then any frigate.

A small surface combatant is simply screwed. The surface warfare lobby will never admit it, and neither will the combat aircraft lobby- but missiles and drones are what count now. Of course it will probably take a war that hopefully we will not lose to get rid of these outmoded warships and warplanes.

A large container ship, huh? A lot of good those ballistic containers will do when a heavyweight torpedo detonates underneath the keel, breaking its back. Break the back of any ship- especially a frigate. What is your point? No, it will take far more punishment than any small hull. And if it is filled with literally thousands of watertight compartments even if it breaks in half they will not sink.

It meant to operate in small surface action groups to provide convoy support, ASW, and AAW duties. They also perform presense operations. Small surface combats are not screwed. The majority of the world navies operate Frigates as their main warship. The US is the propimary navy that focuses our surface combatants on Cruisers and Destroyers.

If you had even a clue as to what a modern anti-ship missile is capable of you would understand that small surface combatants are completely screwed. The surface warfare community is in the same situation as horse cavalry in the late 19th century.

I personally have no gripe with surface combatants. Describe the Hull, Pressure, Containment or Supporting Vessel. SS Atlantic Conveyor was hit by Two AM Exocet Missiles in 25 MayAbandoned and later Sank in 28 May while under tow.

It will Stop a. Filled with various materials to make it fire resistant, buoyant, and able to soak up fragments and blast effects. The stacks bolted together with a shock dampening framework. Extremely difficult to sink or even put out of action.

It would just soak up missile hits. I discussed the Same Theme inthe US Navy Discussed the SAME Theme in ! US Navy Rejected the Idea. And neither do the naval officers looking for second careers with those same corporations. It is about greed, not warfighting. It probably goes back to the First Container Ship built inthe T2 Tanker! Problem was Technology of the Time prevent its Actually coming to Fruition…. At the end it STILL DEAD….

Dead to you maybe. But not to me. If it solves the problem I will put it out for others to see. But NOBODY esignal forex price making any Effort to KILL the Ship!

We can BANTER a subject until Hell Freezes Over, but NOTHING going to change the fact. Not dead to me Old Timer. Very few were Interested. Even the US Navy had the Same Idea, it had a Fast Death. You are the one going online trading system for trading forex 2086 and I will continue to discuss.

I know what a Q-ship is. I am a world war 2 buff and would bet money I know way more about to than you do. I could be wrong but since you just described an armed raider and NOT a Q-ship I doubt it. They had about as much success as you are with your argument.

How long can a U-boat stay submerged and maintain surge speeds? Can it be refuelled diesel, liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen at sea? Can it be used to pursue pirates or boarding operations at short notice? Can it be used to bombard shore targets without expending cruise missiles? Can it be repaired at most shipyards? The answers to these questions show that surface ships cannot be replaced by conventional submarines or even nuclear ones.

What do you base that claim on? How is it, in your view, that missiles have so advanced while countermeasures to them have not? The relative performance of missile seekers vs. To me, logically the very things that have made missiles more effective over the decades, are the same things that have made counter measures more effective.

Yes, in my opinion you have just touched on what is really the whole problem. It would be like medieval knights in an alternate universe continuing to wear armor long after gunpowder weapons were developed because the guns have does samsung trade new york stock exchange been used for some reason.

The knights would never give up their status quo- they would have to be shot out of the saddle. The surface warfare community- the industry, the officers, and the politicians involved with it- will never give up until the ships are sunk. And that is exactly what is going to happen in the age of missiles and robots. If those countermeasures actually worked then nobody would buy airplanes or missiles.

That how to make money easy for teenagers why people buy both countermeasures and missiles… aircraft too although obviously they have other purposes. You enjoy yourself on the ship with the wave of supersonic anti-ship missiles closing in. Hindi film on stock market Spanish F is way to large and capable for the Frigate role.

Actually the F is more a Guided Missile Destroyer than a Frigate. Not sure its the case. So a Revision of the Design of the Ship had to be made which intern added to the Tonnage and Cost…. While I like the FREMM and F those ships are frigates in name only. I would suggest a clean-sheet design but I fear it would take an absurd amount of time before any steel is actually laid down.

Actually, the FREMMs could be modified to carry more: Most likely that would be 32 Option future and other derivatives hull cells for the Aster SAMs and 16 A for cruise missiles. Another combination was offered to Greece that would retain the existing 32 VLS cells A and A but add 24 A cells for the VL-MICA point defence SAMs near the hangar. If I trusted the DOD to set reasonable requirements then I would trust them to actually go forward with a Perry Repacment program.

But the sad truth is they are option software stock trading tips india longer capable of managing a FFG program without turning a M class of ship into a multi Billion Frigstroyer. We need to bring out of retirement those who mangers the Perry class which we built at multiple shipyards around the nation at a cost of M per ship.

Talk to the UK about the Type Is the Royal Binary options market maker still a competent sea force? The UK seems to short change their ships, look at the Type They are not at their full potential. The T is a total mess at the moment.

Their success will be judged by export orders. In all likelihood there lease agreement earnest money be zero export orders.

Official Advertised that they were out of the Defense business in in their QDR though they had been exiting it for sometime before then. The RN has been gutted as badly as the army over there. Evidently jobs with forex brokers no longer keep up with the MOD or the RN. They are a shell of their former selves and no longer a serious maritime force. I would take the 3 FREMM Frigates over the POS LCS any day of the week.

At least with the FREMM Frigate, I can at least put up a good fight and have a fighting chance. At least with the FREMM, it has the capabilities that the POS LCS can only dream of. Wither grow the existing LCS yards for greater capability in a new larger design, or send the employees to someone else who can.

Another argument not mentioned is the tonnage of a Blue Water vessel. Low displacement ships do not fare well in heavy weather, and are typically rendered how to make money in gamez aion ineffective. What do you have then? Our new little frigate must displace over 4, tons for stability, and to be able to contain the multi-warfare combat system, binary options 60 sekunden which one of those systems will obviously be ASW.

An AAW capability all the way up to Tactical Ballistic Missile Defense, and a Supersonic ASCM defense capability must be on board, just to survive the modern battle space, particularly in an A2AD environment, especially in the littorals. Do you suppose that is why the CNO did not want to discuss the inability of an LCS or anything else to survive in an A2AD environment?

There are those who claim that we would never use LCS in this environment for these purposes, and if we did we can defend them with the Aegis platforms. Pull Aegis platforms away from High Value Units?

Once we start off shore companies a can of worms will wiggle the dominoes that have no end! Why would it be new to start with a foreign design?

Fincantieri of Italy was founded until …. It may have been founded as a US company, but it was bought by how to invest in iran stock exchange Italian company. The LCS 1 is based upon how to cook lamb stew in a slow cooker Italian ferry design.

Actually the LCS-2 Independence is based on a Spanish Trimaran Ferry called the HSC Benchijigua Express on the Specifications by Boheur and Ganger Rolf. LCS-1 Freedom, was designed by Gibbs and Cox as Specified by the Israeli Navy as a Light Destroyer….

You need to go back further in the design history. Regardless, my point is that we have used foreign designs in the past with no problem. Why is a foreign design an issue? We got lb steam from the Nazis.

Served us for many years. The Fincantieri Destriero research ship White one was the father of the LCS-1 hull design: The design of this specific ship was developed by Donald L. Blount and Associated even if later developments were conducted by Fincantieri design centers.

And Fincantieri Marine Group average earnest money payment difference Headquartered in Sturgeon Bay Wisconsin. Same place that Palmer Johnson of Morgan Yachts and Shipsone of the two founders of Fincantieri Bay Shipbuilding ….

No, Fincantieri Marine Group is located in Washington, D. The have an Office in Arlington, Virginia! Just 3-miles from where I live. But their Headquarters is Located in Sturgeon Free nexon cash codes no surveys, Wisconsin….

Fincantieri of Italy was founded in Fincantieri Marinette Marine aka Fincantieri Bay Shipbuilding was founded in Mario Amati son of Filmmaker Claudio Amati founded Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani S.

You seem to be in some sort of denial phase… this a old acquisition. Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani S. While How to make money blogging in kenya Marinette Marine aka Fincantieri Bay Shipbuilding of Menominee River, near Green Bay, Wisconsin was founded in My point was only that Marinette is foreign owned, when either company was founded is irrelevant.

In this case, a NATO ally can surely provide acceptable designs. But WHO owns Who? Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani, S. Who intern is Saluhallen market stockholm by Fincantieri Stock market chart 2016-2016 Group which is Headquartered in Sturgeon Bay Wisconsin.

Fincantieri Marinette is an American subsidiary of the Italian company Fincantieri. The US companies operate under FOCI with a Special Security Arrangement SSA to firewall them from the parent for security clearances and ITAR purposes.

But make no mistake, all revenues go to the foreign parent and their shareholders. Cantieri Naval Italiani are Italian and Swiss Owned and ANY Naval Ship Design is automatically the Property of the Italian Government. The SAME as any US Naval Ship Design. WE may own THEM, or THEM us. I believe both designs were excellent replacements for MCMs and PCs. Problems have arisen in trying to say they are frigates, replacements for the OHP. They fall far short to any Frigate in terms of lethality, survivability and range.

However, there are quite as few foreign frigates that could really fit nicely. I tend to lean in the neighborhood of those who live next to that very capable potential adversary. Steel is cheap and air is even cheaper. The high cost in warships comes from complexity and time in outfitting in tight spaces with no margin.

Hence, the Danish Frigate is attractive forget about Stanflex — not required if you have margin to grow. This pays dividends in future maintenance, modernization and repair to pace evolving threats. You need to plan for future growth as we did with the Spruance class.

Do we really need to spend money on AEGIS system or is there another radar system that would suffice but not be as expensive? Can modifications to its superstructure be made to give it a smaller RCS? How about power generation for future electromagnetic weapons?

Can a towed array be put nigerian stock market quotes it? What type of anti-air system? Can they do something about that damn ugly old-looking mast part of RCS reduction??? Anyway, if you were put in charge of giving us a new, capable FFG at a reasonable cost what would you powerpoint template stock market The 9-RMA Radar Module Assembly unit demands much less cooling and power, as apposed to the 37 RMA destroyer version, yet will use the same control cabinets and Radar Set Control feeding the combat system, what ever that console and weapons control suite looks like.

A Land Based Test Site LBTS would be the Life Cycle Support System, and development and test facility just like CSEDS Moorestown, NJ is to Aegis.

Use it as a building block for our next step. Sacrifice a helo hangar and we have space for all the ESSMs, and perhaps more if the inboard cells are Mk41 VLS Standard Length. A 76 mm gun with the new guided rounds will provide more punch and explosive power than the 57 mm via form factor providing more explosive e. If the current LM is replaced with an electric motor then electric propulsion is possible. Far greater control is provided via control of the motor, which could be made to look just like the LM The two diesels in the NSC propulsion system should be replaced by turbines take your pick for speed availability right up front with no warm-up.

Installing the wiring paths with sufficient current capacity right up front is the trick, and they should service no less than four DEWs. This configuration enables the ship to maintain combat speed while providing bottomless magazines to the four DEWs. As long as fuel is on board DEW defense is available. This tough little fighter may not be able to project power very far, but it will be next to impossible to sink from the surface up.

That is shy it needs a robust and capable ASW suite. It should be accompanied by a subsurface element if the tasking requires. The technologies exist to support such a construction. A talented engineering team, capable dedicated shipyard, and a rapid prototyping process can bring this to fruition.

Java joptionpane input validation first unit is the application of the prototyping design effort using modern 3D CAD engineering software. I very much appreciate your input. Maybe someone with influence will read it. Certainly visitors to BD should. I knew you knew your SWO stuff. Look to the Spanish Bazan Class Frigate for the upper deck design. The AAW version would have boats aft like the NSC for Plane Guard and Boarding Operations.

The AAW version would sacrifice a helo hanger providing no margin call option more missiles. If all Mk41 VLS are standard length, then we could carry quite a load mix of ESSMs and SM-6s.

However, I would design the combat system to employ all VLS cells with all ESSM or SM-6 loadout. Both vessels would carry a number of VLA vertical ASROC. We will maintain as much flexibility and commonality as possible between the hulls, very similar to the F concept. This facilitates life-cycle logistical support and maximizes every dollar invested in the program.

Sounds like an in-depth analysis. Perhaps the Editors here at BD will pass them on to someone at Navsea, or perhaps an influential think tank. The best people to listen to are those who have past experience, specially if they were Cold War participants because it sounds like we need stampa su forex on line go back and regain many of those lost capabilities and experience.

China may become the next USSR, and Russia is always causing trouble. The SPY array faces should be as high as practical with the DEWs just below them. The SIMONE IR Tracker http: We are going to have to track insects next in multi-spectral just to pick out the drones. In the littorals it will be nuts with traffic, and land based testing will tax the system well with all the living things in the air.

At sea will be much easier. No more sneak peaks with the periscope for the sub-boys because we will have a tape. That Website worked out! Making Hard Copies as we speak for later Detailed Review. This new little frigate should cross a line in US Navy Surface Combatant design by adding a very capable Passive Combat System capability. Additionally, and more importantly, the Passive systems will enable capable and robust EMCON operations and still be able to fight the ship.

One can go active as soon as required, but fighting the ship without radiating anything except Photons when necessary is possible. Therefore the highest priority targets should always be tracked by them, and monitored on the screen.

When observing aberent behavior on the part of the enemy, just flip off the safety and pull the trigger. Be sure and go back and read all the updates in each section to keep up to speed, for I am updating all the sections in real time as I go along. Use the NSC hull as is, unless it can be easily done without huge impacts to mature systems already on board. Stretching would be tolerated to provide for HED propulsion upgrades and additional fuel storage. The Mk41 VLS is installed in 4-unit half modules so they can be mixed and matched in half-module fashion.

More than 16 should fit forward if properly plumbed in the deck. If that happens then the waist Mk41 VLS cells in place of the sacrificed helo hangar on the AAW version helps balance this out. On the ASW version the towed array and VDS do so. Forget that thought and put it out of your mind. All of Aegis is Government Furnished Equipment GFE so you and I own it.

If we want to mix and match software and hardware elements, it is possible. Aegis is NOT just an equipment ship-set. It is a combat system concept. Now move beyond that limiting mindset, and think up the possible.

I discuss this more below. All in all it sounds like the NSC could very well fit the bill. I hope so, but actually think not. They are driven by politics, and not a single Patrol Frigate proposal presented to date tracks along these lines. They are just too conservative in their thinking and mindset. Our country will suffer for it.

Hope SOMEONE reads it, other than the Russians and the Chinese. There is a factual error in the first photo caption and some parts of the article: The French versions have 32 VLS cells: Thats where the problem lies…. It was a hugely overpriced mess. A lot will depend on what the Aegis radar and computers can be bought for. As for survivability, I know changes were made to the hull for the Hobart class, but obviously details are classified.

In the US defence industry things will cost as much as the corporation doing the work thinks it can get away with charging. Talk about mission creep. Today, it is the blackboxes weapons, sensors, communications, etc.

They are considered the Hobart is a Spanish F Frigate with Ageis and Spy 1. We have Cruisers and Destroyers for the AAW mission. We need FFG to handle ASW and convoy duties with a secondary AAW mission. This is how cost can be reduced. I believe the Arleigh Burke has good ASW. The Tomahawks and Harpoons have to count for something. I see the frigates being a true multi-role with emphasis on ASuW and ASW. That covers patrol and convoy. The UK is is the market for a more basic frigate designated Type 31 but with no design agreed as yet.

The ships can still be built in domestic yards. I agree it would help an ally reduce costs, maybe up the numbers as well. T31 would be to basic and lightweight-im guessing, but t26 design is great, if the gov actually start building them. We can do WAY fucking better. An 16th Century acronym, first coined in by Charles V of England. The word FUCK Fornication Under Consent of the King. Frigate version of the Expeditionary Fast Transport is nice. Full fledge Aegis System, 50 VLS, Searam CIWS, ASW towed sonar, extended length by doubling flight deck, putting a hangar on the existing flight deck for a number or Viper Cobras or Seahawks.

Remaining below deck space modified for logistics, fuel, etc for a Small Surface Combatant Battle Group. Mothership for a contingent of upgunned LCS as Wide Area Air defense, High speed fuel tanker and logistics. Expeditionary Fast Transport is a jet boat…. A frigate sized version of same is already around…. Exactly what LCS needs. Tonnage room for additional armaments and support ship for longer range, logistics for endurance and able to operate under same littoral environments with similar speed.

Additional air assets is a plus when dealing with high speed missile gunboats or smaller speed boat swarm attack tactics. LCS is not suppose to act alone anyhow. Expeditionary Fast Transport has also proven survivable platform when one was his by a sea mine or hit by a missile? It was under lease by a middle eastern state.

A civilian standard hull, no CIWS, no decoys, EWS, no escorting LCS like its intended rule in a LCS battlegroup but still floating after a major hit?

A catamaran structural design is not easy to sink much more if built to military standard. Neither the Navy or Marines are saying anything…. The Spearhead-class would make TERRIBLE frigates. Anything beyond Sea State 3 and you are looking at a serious drop in speed.

Seasickness is a problem on the existing EPFs in heavy seas because their design has a tendency to roll, even in calm sea states. High CBG and low Littoral battle group mix with NIFC. It has inherent trimaran design disadvantages when in blue water sea states but when was the last time a frigate is doing traditional trans ocean WWII convoy escort? Besides the Perry Class frigate were used mostly for non blue water escort missions but more of showing the flag.

It would cost a lot to modify the ship to navy standards. We are a nation surrounded by two oceans. Why would you build more ships that would have trouble operating in either of those oceans? I like your idea for the EPF being a mothership and I believe it has merit, but we need a traditional frigate more than a mothership for an LCS battlegroup.

This is largely in part because I believe that we should reduce the surface combatant force from 3 hull classes to just 2 hull classes, being just Frigates and Cruisers. A bigger Frigate, and a smaller Cruiser should allow us to eliminate the need for destroyers, especially those awful flight III Burks.

I believe that we should Cruiserize the Zumwalt class destroyer. Its the only platform capable of providing enough power for all the future tech that we will be operationalizing such as Lasers, Railguns, AMDR, etc.

Option (finance) - Wikipedia

Get rid of one of the AGS cannons, and pack that area with as many VLS cells as it can fit. It already incorporates our radars, and I believe their is an up-armored variant of it. Also, you know that Lockheed Martin has to get their money one way or another, therefore there is a decent probability that it could be built in America.

Worse idea I have ever heard. At a time that we need a mix force of hulls you want to only focus on high end hulls. Great way to reduce overall ship numbers and apply overkill to mission a like convoy duty. Did you even read the entire post?!

One of those stupid flight III burks cost over 2 billion, and cant even field all the capabilities we need from them. If however if we cruiserize the Zumwalt after the frigate program, we would be able to start operationalizing all our upcoming tech Lasers, Railguns, AMDR, etc. Zumwalts are WAY too expensive and are best used as development platforms.

I think that you just reinforced my point, in your own way. Whether it be the NSC, the typeor any other frigate, we are both still in favor of building a capable frigate larger than an LCS in bulk. Its still noticeably smaller than a the 9k burkes that we are building.

I am a bit confused by your post. What do you see as the main difference between a cruiser and destroyer? The Navy has stretched the burke to be as big as a Cruiser, however its still very very lacking in capability; especially if the Navy is looking to replace the Ticos with the flight 3.

In an effort to save as much money as possible, I am trying to get the point across that there are existing hulls that can fulfill all of our needs. Especially if we can intelligently allocate the tasks and responsibilities of our current 3 hulls between 2 ship classes instead.

Similar to the USS Constitution of …. Removing the 2 AGS instead of 1 would save a substantial amount. A regular Mk could be used with HVPs instead, that would cost less, weigh less and save space for more cells. You have to find ways to significantly the cost of the Zumwalt if you want to build it in numbers.

And if you want to keep the fleet size sufficient you have to reduce the cost of the frigate, because any Zumwalt derivative would anyways still cost a lot. Anything that is not in production today in a US shipyard is a non-starter. If the USN really wants a ship fleet, then it cannot sacrifice production capacity today. Every ship yard should be at max capacity and planning on doubling capacity ASAP. A great many of the ships, subs and aircraft that we currently own are not operational, because funding has been denied or delayed.

We really could get our ass kicked, because of petty partsan bickering and selfish obstructionism. Not to mention any more pressure put on ship builders to push out ships means QA is in the. WW2 Shipyards ran on a Five Shift Rotation. What are the ODDS that ANY US Shipyard is going to DO that in ….

All of these distributed platforms will need to be queuing up to oilers, at sea, for a drink of fuel …. I also see the need for additional new production lines, beyond those which currently exist, regardless of contract awards.

Sailors also gotta eat and the sheer numbers of individual platforms require specific overhead such as basing berths parking.

The Journal of Derivatives: List of Issues

We have seen the great harm that a single, surprise strike, on Pearl Harbor can exact upon our strategic capabilities …. Imagine what a successful modern swarm attack or nuke on any major NAVAL base could do to any of our fleets. Our ports and our berths should be more distributed, at home and abroad.

It is s very bad idea to bunch our ships up. If many VLS tubes are too heavy for the LCS, maybe they could mount the anti-ship missiles like LRASM on the seahawks. The LCS would still probably need about 4 VLS cells for 16 ESSMs plus lighter AShMs like NSMs ready for launch. An indendence LCS with 4 MHRs could be used as a mini stealthy helicopter carrier with a long range punch. The Penguin missile is the biggest ASuW weapon the US helicopters can carry…. The TGED boosts SHP. The hardpoint would have to be strengthened.

The Russians carry very heavy AShMs on some of their helos so it is possible. An advantage of not using a VLS is that the VLS cannot be reloaded at sea, whereas tranport helos could bring more missiles to the ship if they are to be launched by the Hs.

The BRUA will mount the Penguin and it weighs about pounds. The big missiles like Harpoon weigh twice that. They could use the lbs NSM on the BRUA station, it is more modern than the penguin, The ESSS could be modified with one pylon instead of 2 to reduce the wingspan, and the station could be modified to carry a lbs JASSM.

The ship would probably need some tube launched AShMs ready for launch in case of emergency. I am not sure a heavy helicopter carrier would make sense versus an LHA, but if a modified Independence could carry 4 seahawks, that would represent a strong anti-submarine and anti-ship capability, with the ability to reload at sea. The worst part of the debate is that technicians are seemingly winning over tacticians.

In a full blooded war the surface combatant will need its weapons capability more then the prowess of its engines to defeat the enemy. Whatever they decide, give the American people a ship that they can look at and be proud of. The best FFG in the world and … pay some attention to aesthetics. It should look good too! Every one of the foreign frigates have far superior watertight integrity and some have greater combat system capability, except for perhaps ESM capabilities.

I would take any of these over an LCS in the Arctic, or in heavy weather any day. Then comes the tricky part; increasing taxes to pay for the increased capital and operating costs. They build first class destroyers and in great number currently.

Sometime I think we are easily overlooking our friends and allies. Can you get a useful ship modified from one of the LCS hulls for less than that? Most importantly, will the mission requirements change yet again before they make up their minds to award a contract in ?

If the US is looking for an affordable but capable destroyer then how about some of the European designs? The British Type 45 and French Horizon are two of the most advanced surface destroyers ever built. Shame so few were actually made. It makes a lot of sense for NATO members to team up on complex defense acquisition projects.

Commonality of platforms would save a lot of money, reduce excess waste and increase the military capabilities of NATO and its allies. There is no need for a ship yard to go out of business. Current LCS builders can be contracted to built the new frigate. They will have to update their yards. It can be done.

The LCS shipyards can make the transition while HII completes the design and starts building the first frigate. For three crucial national security roles—Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and Secretary of Homeland Security—President Donald Trump has turned to career military men.

Sure, they have relevant experience a-plenty, but their nominations set off alarm bells for many concerned about the principle of civilian control. Registration or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Breaking Defense Defense industry news, analysis and commentary. Navy Looks To Foreign Frigates, National Security Cutter By Sydney J.

Sign up and get Breaking Defense news in your inbox. For me it would be the Fridtjof Nansen Class frigates in use by the Norwegian navy. It was corporate welfare driven by campaign contributions. But were NOT in a World War, Are We…. We need 20 Virginia subs ASAP! LCS is the least of our concern. Your mind is made up. Not loaded with ballistic containers. No point arguing with you. What does that have to do with this discussion? I think you are just making stuff up.

Well stop replying to my comments and let me have my say. I am not bothering you. I have the opinion on arming container ships, you are the one on the rant. Actually they are meaningless. You are not going to put me to work schooling you up. If that were true there would be no air force.

Why would there be no air force? Yet another complete non sequitur to me. Not my job to make you wise. I cannot wait to hear how Lazarus spins this one. Never heard of him. Sounds like the NSC will get a thorough and fair try at the new frigate contract.

It is a guided missile destroyer. How do you figure in the case of Fincantieri Marinette Marine being Foreign? Fincantieri Marinette Marine is foreign owned. Fincantieri is an Italian shipbuilding company. The then Marinette Marine Corporation was sold to Fincantieri Marine Group in MAIN OFFICE 55 M Street Southeast, Suite Washington, D. Marinette is owned by Fincantieri which is an Italian company.

Hendrix might be a good man to see this. Since he reads BD perhaps he has. This would still represent far better value than the LCS. They would most likely be too small for what the US would need. Please have we not learned anything for joint development screw ups.

It not so much what Stackley wants, but what the US Congress is willing to pay for…. Foul language just makes you sound like a 12 year old. Ever been to Brooklyn? Ever been in the military? You should have been banned long ago. Yes, and you should have been banned long ago. Colin or Sydney need to ban you for putting this garbage on their forum. Oh dear, so the LCS is not worth the dollar? Gee who wouda though………. Did you see the damage caused. It floated but mostly a total wreck.

The page cannot be found - Rotman School of Management

Tonnage, role, level of sophistication, capabilities, weapons compliment. As all surface war ships have to!! Been saying that all along all yr on this subject!! Way way too heavy. BOTH are Stealthy Ships, use Waterjet Propulsion and mount a Bofors 57xmm Autocannon…. I wrote this a month ago. Perhaps someone at the Pentagon got ideas from reading this: Colin Clark Editor Sydney J.

The official Congress website, from lawmakers to made laws. Breaking Defense In your inbox Want the latest defense industry news? Sign up for the Breaking Defense newsletter. Editorial Staff Colin Clark Editor Sydney J. Follow us No thanks. Our Sites Breaking Defense Breaking Energy Breaking Gov Above the Law Dealbreaker MedCity News.