Shipbucket

My Ass
Yet backbiting, from a infamous moderator
Lockheed Martin Tests LRASM MK 41 Vertical Launch System Interface No hate, only the desire to think about the future and Effectiveness
The twin/quadruples SSM launchers is a ageing "launching-principle", dating from the 1960's/early 1970's.
They take-up space, weight ON the bridge/superstructure
This is (now) a cumbersome missile system compared to the more modular/flexible/versatile VLS principle

The VLS tubes/launching-process is far much more modular/efficient (in term of space/reactivity/foot-print).
A twin or quadruple cannister SSM launcher carry only the SSM missile model, when a VLS group (depending on their models: Mk 41/48/56/57) can take a wide variety of missile (AAW/ASW/ASM...)

Cry me a river. Your tears refresh me. Yes, exactly my point. There is either a choise of going for the more capable but more expensive LRASM, or the cheaper and ubiquitous Harpoon. But nobody is going to shell out money to have a VLS variant of Harpoon made. Thus if you use Harpoon, you're saddled with the on-deck canisters. This isn't fucking rocket scie... actually, it is.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

So is most of our technology. The wedge breech is 160 years old, older than the interrupted screw breech but it's still in use.
True, but so does a VLS and missile for missile a VLS is heavier. In terms of deckspace VLS and cannisters are equal.
How is it cumbersome? It's lighter and has a smaller footprint than a VLS. Heck, judging by the sheer variety of ships you can fit a Mk 141 on it's even more flexible.
Not really. You can bolt on a Mk 141 just about anywhere, whereas you need to design a ship from the ground up to take a VLS. The footprint is smaller since it only takes up space on deck, not below it. Reactivity is about the same. The Block 2 Harpoons can do something like 100 degree offbore targeting and since you've always carry them in pairs that 400 degrees of coverage.
True, but if you load them up with SSMs then you're reducing your SAM complement.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

If you choose to built a future U.S. frigate : as in this topic !
- around 18-32 FFG(X) built
- designed by 2013-2018 (even if the U.S. Navy (in view of the LCS program failure) has already begun to explore future FFG (X) design's !)
- laid-down by 2019-2033...
- launched by 2021-2035...
- commissioned by 2023-2036...
- with 28/33 years service life expected...
=> retired from service around 2052/2069...

You must think of the Chinese/Russian/Iranian/North-Korean/Others threats.....

When I see that the Brahmos SSM style (mach 2,8) will be the "world-rule" in the next 5 years (late 2010s).
And event the Brahmos-II style (mach 5/7) will be "the rule" by late 2020s.
It is obvious that the hypersonic+++ missiles (mach 7/10) will become "the rule" in the 2030s
I laugh when you continue to tell me about the subsonic Harpoon in the future
Think supersonic/hypersonic SSM missile in VLS !!!

Unfortunately such a thing does not exist, nor will it for quite some time.

The I wonder why Kongsberg produced the only existing next gen. missile to date that can out think and defend it self and attack by it self, while it's flying subsonic, and can only be launched from canister, even when Kongsberg had the chance to produce an VLS variant. while Brahmos is fast you can see it, but you have an reduced chance to defend against it due to that speed. The NSM "You'll never know what hit you!" you can see it, you get local Jammed (so no communication in and out to that vessel), the NSM can also chose where, how and what to attack. Thanks to it's uniqe ability to see what it's doing. (It's almost like it is self-thinking) but after you'r conclusion that missile is so 80's!



my design is all about being cheep but also give a ship that can handle the situation it's designed for. so no laser, and only what in store equipment. no fancy thing.

So:

- Radars, USA have that in store from cannibalizing older ship.
- Harpoon, USA have that in store from cannibalizing older ship.
- gun, USA have that in store from cannibalizing older ship.
- Communication, USA have that in store from cannibalizing older ship.
- Tomahawk, if they have in store....
- illumination, - Communication, USA have that in store from cannibalizing older ship.
- small boat solution, Every time USA had the chance to build their small boat in, they didn't. so I am not going to do that. (Remember USA is backseat and front seat moderator, while Europa, take the best of both world.... because we can!)


compare that to you'r suggestion. which one will give most value for the money. mine with a ship with old equipment that are still good and can easily be updated to better version, like: Harpoon, radar, illumination, communication, etc. with my vessel you already have every thing in store, and can fast produce many frigate in short period. I think I could build up to 15/30% more ships than you could do with you'r requirement. that give me an 57 to 65 to you'r 50 ship's (yes you can outperform when it come to radar, but i can swarm you'r vessels.(sounds like Soviet during WW2!))

or we can do it you'r way:

- next gen. radar. ship's under production have to wait to those radar are produced. (are also very expensive, they will also be way to heavy (not to heavy but to much weight at same area on the ship))
- laser, ship's under production have to wait to those radar are produced. (are also very expensive)
- next gen. missiles. ship's under production have to wait to those radar are produced. (well... how know!)

you get a new ship with expensive equipment, and many of them might not be finish produced when the ship is launched. just like the Norwegian frigate:

- 4/5 got only one single 16 cell MK-41 VLS. (there wasn't produced enough VLS for Norway at the time) 1/5 frigate got 32 cell MK-41 VLS.
- 1/5 got full radar and communication suit. 4/5 have reduced communication suit. wasn't ready (apparently the company was overbooked!)
- CIWS none of them got any since the required CIWS wasn't ready.

Norway chosen to have their RHIB on deck out of experience, many nation that have visited Norway have experienced problem with launching there RHIB in cold extreme weather. This is something and US frigate must be able to do.


I know that you know, after seen all those hundreds of drawing I have done here in SB that I know when to draw a ship totally advance with the latest in tec. but also when not to. an this is about a vessel that is cheep.

VLS tubes are actually using more volume then deck space, while the canisters are using more deck space but next to no volume at all. it depends entirely on the design what works best, but fact is that 90% of the ship designs being made now have at least space for these canisters to be fitted.
ow btw, the base design of the gibbs & cox frigate is way older then any of the designs used as base shown here, colombamike, you are contradicting yourself here.
the 57 and 76mm guns have no shore assault capability, and with the removal of tomahawk you loose ALL shore attack capability.
I think all the bow designs you posted are AU designs, neither of which is perfect IMO, and in any case bow design depends on the ship shape itself. there is none which can be considered really superior to all others.
unitised machinery is still an very important design factor, something you seem to be discarding with 'go for an single funnel'

other then that, I will leave it to the designers of the ships themselves.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

The reason for two funnels is simple: The forward one is for the two (one if this proves to be too big and heavy) LM-2500 gas turbine(s) that will be used in cases where the ship needs to sprint. The after funnel is for the diesel engine when the ship cruises long distances. That is called fuel economy, the diesel engine uses much less fuel than the gas turbine. The superstructure and hull shape is based on several American designs that can be found in the never were part on the main site, namely the FF-21 and the Northrop Grumman FF design. I feel I don`t have to make a Burke based design, as there is already over 62 in service with 75 planned, that is why it`s called the Burkeswarm. My frigate really don`t need the 5 inch gun or Tomahawks for land attack, that is not the mission for a frigate. Plus the over 80 plus surface combatants and countless other subs capable of land attack.

my funnel is a two funnel solution that have been build in one big funnel... and I choose the 5" just because I think it's a gun that are in store. but If US is going for an all new gun, then it's enough with the 57mm. the only mission I can think an frigate have in US Navy is:

- Escort of cargo.... tankers.
- patrol of area's
- helping in a blockade
- supporting in an ASW operation
- or just give US present other places without needing to send it's bigger more capable ship for that.
- but also an training ground, development area of future ship commanders.

Hi Columbiamike,
Do you have any documentation to go with that? I understand that various people are testing hypersonic stuff at the moment, however, I also understand that there's still a significant incidence of engines failing to light at design speed (given that it's been compared to lighting a match in a hurricane, hardly suprising, perhaps) - and I'm unaware of anything that speed that's not a technology demonstrator. It would seem ambitious indeed to say that given the current state of play these devices will be ubiquitous in 5-15 years. I don't doubt that there will be some around, but "the rule" - and therefore something that a low-cost escort is required to defeat?

As for the other part, that "hypersonic+++", again, do you have anything I could read about that? Seems a tad ambitious just in terms of the tremendous amount of heat you're going to be putting somewhere - just a hunch, but feels very edge-of-materials-science for something that's intended to ram into the side of a ship. My other question would be, I guess, what does mach 7/10 get you that mach 5/7 doesn't?

Regards,
APDSmith

edit:ugh, late night spelling strikes again...

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695