Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Frigates/Destroyers--GP vs Specialized

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Frigates/Destroyers--GP vs Specialized

    What do you think makes more sense---surface escorts that can do anything or those specialized in the ASW or AAW role? The US seems to like high end GP ships while most other navies differentiate between their AAW and ASW ships. With limited budgets (and ships), I think having a jack-of-all-trades is more cost efficient.

  • #2
    The US Navy has not been able to cover its commitments since they got rid of the Perry's. A low end escort can carry some AA assets and a high end escort can carry ASW. I don't like the trend of building 15k to 20k escorts. We need to find a way to fully man the ships we have.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      I notice with the FREMM frigates overseas, the mix of general purpose vs anti sub is roughly 50/50 with the Italians. Six of the French version will be anti sub, while two are for air warfare roles. And if I recall, the Burkes in the US that didn't get towed sonars are now getting them.
      Given the cost of ships rising, general purpose ships seems to be the only alternative in order to cover all the requirements. Small autonomous boats hunting subs may also force the hand of specialised boats to slide off the wishlist due to costs.
      "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
      Ernest Hemingway.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
        I notice with the FREMM frigates overseas, the mix of general purpose vs anti sub is roughly 50/50 with the Italians. Six of the French version will be anti sub, while two are for air warfare roles. And if I recall, the Burkes in the US that didn't get towed sonars are now getting them.
        Given the cost of ships rising, general purpose ships seems to be the only alternative in order to cover all the requirements. Small autonomous boats hunting subs may also force the hand of specialised boats to slide off the wishlist due to costs.
        That's my thoughts, also. That's why I question Australia's 3:10 ratio and the UK's 6:8. It really concerns me because many of the AAW ships have relatively few VLS compared to the US/JPN/ROK ships and many of the ASW ships mainly have point defense only systems.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by johns624 View Post
          What do you think makes more sense---surface escorts that can do anything or those specialized in the ASW or AAW role? The US seems to like high end GP ships while most other navies differentiate between their AAW and ASW ships. With limited budgets (and ships), I think having a jack-of-all-trades is more cost efficient.
          I say that jack of all trades makes perfect sense once you're up over that 8000 ton level. At that point you really have the capacity to 'do it all', even if you might be able to do one exceptionally vice doing all roles well.

          I think that at 5000 tons or below, you have an option of doing one role well, or doing all roles mediocre, or doing an LCS and doing nothing well and being kind of crap at everything by trying to be able to specialize at the drop of a hat into everything.

          I think that at a minimum, every ship should be able to self-defense against ASMs and other typical threats. However, true Frigates or Corvettes should specialize into one escort role and stay there. A ship can have a secondary role, but a smaller vessel should have a single primary role and then secondary roles as allowed by available space or on an ad hoc basis. Destroyers and cruisers by their very nature are and should be multi-role vessels. But then I'm calling Destroyers as 8-12ktons and Cruisers above that.
          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by johns624 View Post
            What do you think makes more sense---surface escorts that can do anything or those specialized in the ASW or AAW role? The US seems to like high end GP ships while most other navies differentiate between their AAW and ASW ships. With limited budgets (and ships), I think having a jack-of-all-trades is more cost efficient.
            In the big war scenario like cold war having specialized ships made more sense in our world probably more GP ships

            Comment


            • #7
              Just an FYI-I'm using the term "frigate" like the rest of the world does, not the USN. The ROTW uses it to mean either a dedicated ASW platform or interchangeably with "destroyer". I do not mean it as a smaller, slower, less capable ship.

              Comment


              • #8
                i'd prefer larger surface combatants be GP while smaller surface combatants can be specialized.
                the answer is on the floor- john roseberry

                A tiger dies and leaves his fur,
                A man dies and leaves his name,
                A teacher dies and teaches death.
                Seikchi Toguchi 1917-1998

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                  I say that jack of all trades makes perfect sense once you're up over that 8000 ton level. At that point you really have the capacity to 'do it all', even if you might be able to do one exceptionally vice doing all roles well.

                  I think that at 5000 tons or below, you have an option of doing one role well, or doing all roles mediocre, or doing an LCS and doing nothing well and being kind of crap at everything by trying to be able to specialize at the drop of a hat into everything.

                  I think that at a minimum, every ship should be able to self-defense against ASMs and other typical threats. However, true Frigates or Corvettes should specialize into one escort role and stay there. A ship can have a secondary role, but a smaller vessel should have a single primary role and then secondary roles as allowed by available space or on an ad hoc basis. Destroyers and cruisers by their very nature are and should be multi-role vessels. But then I'm calling Destroyers as 8-12ktons and Cruisers above that.
                  Tac just about covered my thoughts on this subject.

                  I think anything above a PC should have point defense AND if possible at least a 25mi+ (40km+) anti-air coverage distance such as what ESSM would provide.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think that any large blue water navy should have every destroyer/frigate have at least limited area defense capability (16 cell VLS with either SM or Aster 30) in addition to RAM/ESSM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                      I think that any large blue water navy should have every destroyer/frigate have at least limited area defense capability (16 cell VLS with either SM or Aster 30) in addition to RAM/ESSM.
                      I think that SM for a ship that's not doing AAW is a bit much. I don't want to waste space on ASW frigates to add on that much of an air warfare suite. Having mk41 that can hold ASROC, NSM and ESSM would be sufficient.
                      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                        I think that SM for a ship that's not doing AAW is a bit much. I don't want to waste space on ASW frigates to add on that much of an air warfare suite. Having mk41 that can hold ASROC, NSM and ESSM would be sufficient.
                        My point is that it might have to do AAW. Look at the USN. Each CVG has one CG Tico with 122 VLS cells. It also has at least 2 Burkes with 90-96 cells. Now, look at the RN. They have two carriers. They only have 6 Type 45 AAW destroyers with 48 cells. Their 8 new Type 26 ASW frigates (7000t) will have a 48 cell Sea-Ceptor local air defense launcher. Unless both carriers operate together, or one remains moored to the pier, they're going to come up short of escort assets. Of course, people always say "we'll always be operating with a USN CBG". Maybe, maybe not. One 48 cell AAW DDG and two ASW frigates might not offer enough protection. The irony is, they need much more protection because of their smaller air group and the greater national pride that each one is worth. People always say "what would the US do if the Chinese sank a CVN?". We'd continue the war. A better question is what would the Brits do if one of their QE-class was sunk? They'd probably have to go home because they wouldn't be able to protect the second.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                          I think that SM for a ship that's not doing AAW is a bit much. I don't want to waste space on ASW frigates to add on that much of an air warfare suite. Having mk41 that can hold ASROC, NSM and ESSM would be sufficient.
                          have they tested VLS compatible NSM yet? i heard it was coming a while ago, but haven't seen any news on that front since.
                          the answer is on the floor- john roseberry

                          A tiger dies and leaves his fur,
                          A man dies and leaves his name,
                          A teacher dies and teaches death.
                          Seikchi Toguchi 1917-1998

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post

                            have they tested VLS compatible NSM yet? i heard it was coming a while ago, but haven't seen any news on that front since.
                            To a degree I'm presuming that itll happen at some point just like TLAM. Harpoon could be VLS if they had wanted to make it so. The only reason I say that is that frigates and corvettes may need the ability to support land operations, and any surface ship should have the ability to shoot at other surface ships. And vls is more efficient a method for storage than other options.
                            Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by johns624 View Post

                              My point is that it might have to do AAW. Look at the USN. Each CVG has one CG Tico with 122 VLS cells. It also has at least 2 Burkes with 90-96 cells. Now, look at the RN. They have two carriers. They only have 6 Type 45 AAW destroyers with 48 cells. Their 8 new Type 26 ASW frigates (7000t) will have a 48 cell Sea-Ceptor local air defense launcher. Unless both carriers operate together, or one remains moored to the pier, they're going to come up short of escort assets. Of course, people always say "we'll always be operating with a USN CBG". Maybe, maybe not. One 48 cell AAW DDG and two ASW frigates might not offer enough protection. The irony is, they need much more protection because of their smaller air group and the greater national pride that each one is worth. People always say "what would the US do if the Chinese sank a CVN?". We'd continue the war. A better question is what would the Brits do if one of their QE-class was sunk? They'd probably have to go home because they wouldn't be able to protect the second.
                              That's kind of the break. Although if you read my original reply to the OP I stated that ships over 8000t should always be general purpose. And I don't start arguing for specific role ships until you get under 5000t.

                              I just find the concept of trying to pack the radars, fire controllers, and missiles to both do self defense and minimum area defense into a ship under 5000t that is primarily an ASW ship is going to hurt your ability to do your primary job. And it's going to jack up your costs substantially.

                              An ASW frigate needs self defense AAW, onboard and towed sonar, a hangar and 2 helicopters, torpedoes, and ASROC. Plus ASM. That's already packing it in on say 4000t. Now upgrade the radar to handle SM and add 16 more vls tubes......

                              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X