The Ship Model Forum

[quote="SumGui"]1 - certainly not anti diesel, in fact I think CODAG or CODLAG is perfect for all the reasons you list, just concerned about the number of specialties the vessel will require. In order to have both Diesel and GT skill onboard you either need a diesel guy and a Turbine guy, or one guy trained for both (actually, multiples of each, but you get the point). Either the manning doubles, or each crew member gets more expensive due to training and retention costs. Same with the diverse gun systems - excellent layering, but now the vessel needs 155mm, 57mm, and 30mm skills in addition to whatever is in the Typhoon mount.[/quote]
Minor point 35mm not, 30mm – however the point is taken. That said, I find the engineering plant manning requirements to be reasonable (diesels and GT are remarkably reliable) and the combat system of this ship are an order of magnitude simpler than a CG, or DDG.

The entire manning issue is a topic that the Navy has to have with itself. My personal opinion is it had gone too far in the lean direction in the FFG-7s and is much worse now with LCS. “A” and “C” schools do not make up for a robust OJT program in the fleet. In some ways the NEC school system has made this worse. Minimum manning does not take this into account, nor does it address mid-grade and senior enlisted who may be great at their job, but awful mentors; and sometimes incompetent. Human nature must be taken into account. My cousin married a Vietnam era draftee ET, and he was given fantastic shipboard training in electronic theory and trouble shooting that many techs in the fleet just two decades later did not get even after a sequence of schools. Again this is another discussion.
[quote="SumGui"]
3 - I would not reduce the flight deck size. The ability to take larger helos is a great asset for the cost of steel - it won't always be the ships aircraft operating from that deck. Spruance's were sized to take a CH-46, and that capability was used off Grenada. In the Arabian Gulf, multiple other combinations were used on some ships, including OH-58s. Keep the size - it is 'cheap' to build bigger (once you have committed to helos aboard).
[/quote]
Ah, my error: I mean robotic helicopter traversing systems! I should have added robotic, or at least remotely operated fire-fighting systems. These also might be deployed to the repair lockers, and engineering spaces.

I did consider a larger flight deck (but not hangers); that fell away as I thought through the design. If anything, it might actually be desirable to increase the VLS size to 64-cells. This will be a "tight ship" by USN standards. Compared to a JMSDF Takanami DD, this ship carries an extra helo, and second gun (Mk 110), 16 more VLS cells, and two 35mm gun systems.

[quote="Busto963"]
1) I am a bit surprised about your concern for the diesels, which should be low maintenance and low manning. :scratch: You are going to have engine men onboard anyway. I imagine four main machinery spaces: one per diesel or GT generator. This is entirely appropriate for a ~5000 ton ship. FFG-7s ran 4 main spaces with two watch standers in the spaces – what am I missing here? I would have a complete fuel oil service/transfer system (Delaval, F/O service tanks et al) in each space which would increase procurement costs, but would also be incredibly damage resistant.
2) The lack of a stern ramp (I just don’t think it can be fitted with the VDS/towed array sonars) does mean boat launch and recover will be more demanding. It is design tradeoff.
3) The flight deck crew could be dramatically reduced in size [i]if [/i]robotic helicopter systems were used. I am not sure if the procurement cost and maintenance load represents a net manpower savings.
4) The ship does have “emergency berthing” to cover temporary manning needs.
[/quote]

1 - certainly not anti diesel, in fact I think CODAG or CODLAG is perfect for all the reasons you list, just concerned about the number of specialties the vessel will require. In order to have both Diesel and GT skill onboard you either need a diesel guy and a Turbine guy, or one guy trained for both (actually, multiples of each, but you get the point). Either the manning doubles, or each crew member gets more expensive due to training and retention costs. Same with the diverse gun systems - excellent layering, but now the vessel needs 155mm, 57mm, and 30mm skills in addition to whatever is in the Typhoon mount.

2- I'm a fan of the stern ramp, but understand the trade-off here.

3 - I would not reduce the flight deck size. The ability to take larger helos is a great asset for the cost of steel - it won't always be the ships aircraft operating from that deck. Spruance's were sized to take a CH-46, and that capability was used off Grenada. In the Arabian Gulf, multiple other combinations were used on some ships, including OH-58s. Keep the size - it is 'cheap' to build bigger (once you have committed to helos aboard).

4 - saw that - good thing. Allows for CGLEDET, VBSS teams, SOF, etc.

[quote="SumGui"]
1 - more info on your 155/62 gun. Manned/unmanned? Bagged/containerized charges (MRSI) or fixed/semi-fixed (no MRSI) ammunition? What ROF (especially burst) do you project? [/quote]

This is a “what if” weapon inspired by the BAE idea to put a 155mm gun based on the British Army AS-90 howitzer and fit it into the Royal Navy 4.5" gun mount. The idea of being able to fit, or replace 4.5 or 5” guns with a comparatively inexpensive NATO standard 155mm is a stroke of brilliance. :big_grin: RoF would likely be about 8-12 RPM - no burst capability :( . Range will be 30-75 km. The mount would be unmanned, and I envision a large vertical ready service magazine maybe 80 rounds.

Admittedly, the army modular charge system would likely have to be replaced with a navy unique semi-fixed ammunition. More expense, but the expense in ammunition is in the fuse or guidance (if fitted) - nothing compared to the expense of AGS and AGS-light… Reportedly BAE was still working on the charge handling system when the program got cut in the draconian MoD budget cuts. The AS-90 is a modern based on modern NATO 155mm ammunition meaning it has much larger chamber volume and hence much higher velocity making it a “gun-howitzer.” The AS-90 is broadly equivalent to the PZH-2000 and Archer in terms of weapon performance (high burst rate, long range, etc.). Another huge advantage is the extensive range of available 155 munitions – artillery should be capable of delivering a range of effects on target besides blast, penetration and fragmentation. Smoke (including IR spectrum obscurants), illumination (IR spectrum!), Cargo rounds, incendiaries, riot control, non-lethal, minefields – you get the point.

The point is not to build a bombardment cruiser, but to economically get some fire support capability into the fleet without having to push an Aegis CG/DDG close to shore. A 155mm gun and GMRLS (really POLAR) would be a significant and welcome help to ground forces. One ship like this off of Mogadishu in 1993 (Black Hawk Down) would have absolutely dominated the battlefield and saved a lot of American lives. Hopefully, this ship would could be procured in great enough numbers that one or two could be dispatched to support low intensity conflicts on a 24/7 basis.

[quote]2 - Crew. Boat ops and ASW and AAW sensors and a helo in the air while manning three gun systems (even remotely) and the Typhoon station would make the VBSS team away just one of the places which are requiring many Sailors in many places at once (and a 'hot' VBSS op would want them all...). Add the need for maintenance of that load of diverse systems (including both GT and Diesel skills aboard) and you may have an expensive and/or large crew. What is you projection on crew numbers? Number of crew and training will be a major player in defining operational cost. [/quote]
These are all valid concerns, but I think the Navy needs to back off the minimum manning mania - crews need to be sized appropriate to the ship’s mission. Holding down crew size is a valid concern in peacetime, but the LCS shows the limits of this thinking (as did FFG manning during Operation “Earnest Will”). My suspicion is that this ship really ought to have a complement of ~180 plus aviation det, SOF, USMC or LEDET VBSS augmentation during combat cruises. Yes, that will have the Pentagon in conniption fits. I bet anyone who has actually done condition 3 (wartime cruising) for even two or three-months will attest that this is a realistic – although budget unfriendly, number. Anybody who served on the Roberts, Cole, or Stark may have additional insight. More thoughts:
[list]
1) I am a bit surprised about your concern for the diesels, which should be low maintenance and low manning. :scratch: You are going to have engine men onboard anyway. I imagine four main machinery spaces: one per diesel or GT generator. This is entirely appropriate for a ~5000 ton ship. FFG-7s ran 4 main spaces with two watch standers in the spaces – what am I missing here? I would have a complete fuel oil service/transfer system (Delaval, F/O service tanks et al) in each space which would increase procurement costs, but would also be incredibly damage resistant.
2) The lack of a stern ramp (I just don’t think it can be fitted with the VDS/towed array sonars) does mean boat launch and recover will be more demanding. It is design tradeoff.
3) The flight deck crew could be dramatically reduced in size [i]if [/i]robotic helicopter systems were used [color=#0000BF][edited: I mean robotic helicopter traversing systems!] [/color] I am not sure if the procurement cost and maintenance load represents a net manpower savings.
4) The ship does have “emergency berthing” to cover temporary manning needs.
[/list]

[quote] 3 - ASM. I did not see any ASM missile listed, and LASM did not have a good warhead for anti-ship work.

4 - "launch deep strikes with cruise missiles;" No system listed. Tomahawk in the Mk 41?[/quote]
Whatever can be shot out of a MK-41works for me… 48-cells is a whole lot of love! :heh:

[quote="carr"]I love the idea of a dedicated, lower end (non-Aegis) ASW vessel.

I don't know much about water jets but my understanding is that they're very noisy. If so, are they the best choice for ASW work?

What about isolation machinery mounts (not an issue from a modelling perspective!), Prairie bleed system (Masker wouldn't be used with water jets), short tailed MFTA for littoral ASW, NIXIE, and hull mounted multi-freq (med and low) sonar? I also like the Soviet RBU or a Hedgehog-like weapon.

Just some random thoughts.

Is this intended to be a modelling project or just a thought exercise?[/quote]
This is intended to be a modeling project as well as a serious proposal for a warship. I assume that standard warship building “best practices” will be followed so machinery isolation and other features will be incorporated.

As Dave has noted, there is a gigantic sucking hole in the surface fleet for hull numbers, fire support capability, and ASW. This ship should be a state of the art ASW platform, and while not a “bombardment cruiser,” it should contribute significantly to a ground campaign with 203mm POLAR rockets, and its 155mm gun that can fire advanced NATO ammunition unlike AGS.

These ships will have a hull form similar to an enlarged Krivak III and high weather deck to emphasize sea keeping. The PFG should be a robustly constructed, affordable ship, perfect for peacetime patrol work due to the fuel efficient diesels for longer range. The GTGs should prove quiet and her extensive sonar arrays should provide the best surface ship sonar platforms during combat operations. I imagine an "A+B" production with one version equipped with a towed array and the other with VDS. VDS can be more useful in heavy seas and shallows. The ship might have low, medium, and high frequency hull mounted sonar capability – maybe a separate dome for high frequency sonar to be used for VSW ASW work.

Some form of RBU like the SAAB Dynamics ASW-601 ASW Grenade Launcher might well be a good option.

Deeply submerged Voith Schneider Waterjets are not the same pump jets associated with LCS, but look more like shrouded conventional propellers with a stator element. In theory, these could be tuned for low noise. If this is unworkable, then the obvious remedy is to substitute a conventional propellers.

I like it.

Questions:

1 - more info on your 155/62 gun. Manned/unmanned? Bagged/containerized charges (MRSI) or fixed/semi-fixed (no MRSI) ammunition? What ROF (especially burst) do you project?

2 - Crew. Boat ops and ASW and AAW sensors and a helo in the air while manning three gun systems (even remotely) and the Typhoon station would make the VBSS team away just one of the places which are requiring many Sailors in many places at once (and a 'hot' VBSS op would want them all...). Add the need for maintenance of that load of diverse systems (including both GT and Diesel skills aboard) and you may have an expensive and/or large crew. What is you projection on crew numbers? Number of crew and training will be a major player in defining operational cost.

3 - ASM. I did not see any ASM missile listed, and LASM did not have a good warhead for anti-ship work.

4 - "launch deep strikes with cruise missiles;" No system listed. Tomahawk in the Mk 41?

..

[b]Patrol Frigate:[/b] A proposal for the WIF team for a new ASW/fire support frigate

[b]Description:[/b] The PFG is a mass production surface combatant with the primary mission Sea Control with an emphasis on blue water and costal ASW. She will also be prepared to conduct VBSS, maritime patrol and power projection (fire support) missions. She has state of the art sonar suite with hull mounted sonar combined with either a Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) or a towed array system. The PFG has with self-protection AAW capability (ESSM and RAM). She will be able to: screen the area of operations; gather ELINT; launch deep strikes with cruise missiles; support SOF and NSMU operations; enforce quarantines and blockades; and provide fire support. This ship may be procured for the USCG in which case she will be fitted for the Mk-41 VLS, but the space used for stores to extend endurance.

[b]General Characteristics:[/b]
[list]- Displacement hull with bulbous bow
- 140m long, 17m beam, draft 6 m
- 5,000 ton displacement
- CODLAG Propulsion with an Integrated Power System (IPS)
- Mission Deck
- Emergency berthing for 50 Personnel (USCG LEDET, SOF, augmentation crew, etc.)
- Brig
[/list]

[b]Armament:[/b]
[list](1) MK 41 VLS module w/48-cells (LASM, VLA, ESSM, POLAR (203mm naval GMRLS))
(1) 155mm L/62 Caliber naval gun-howitzer based on the BAE naval version of the AS-90 gun (a modern large chamber volume NATO gun-howitzer not AGS…)
(1) MK 110 57mm Mod 0 Naval Gun super firing over the 155mm gun
(4) Internal 533mm torpedo tubes with the capability to launch ROVs and autonomous vehicles
(2) Mk 49 RAM launchers with the forward mount super firing over the MK 110
(2) Rheinmetall 35mm GDM008 Millennium guns [color=#BF0000][i]or [/i][/color]Denel 35mm Dual Purpose Guns
(2) Typhon weapon station w/19 round LAU-61C 2.75” rocket launcher or (5) Gryphon rockets[/list]

[b]Propulsion:[/b]
[list](2) 20V 8,000 kW MTU diesel generators
(2) 36 MW Rolls-Royce MT30 Gas Turbine Generators 1.34hp=1kW
(2) Deeply Submerged Voith Schneider Waterjets
(2) Two-bladed Voith Schneider Rudders (capable of emergency propulsion)
(1) Retractable 3.3 MW azipod with contra-rotating propellers[/list]

[b]Aviation Support:[/b]
[list]- Flight deck with spots for one medium lift helicopter
- Hangars for 2 medium-lift helicopters (MH-60S/MH-60R)
- Magazines for torpedoes, rockets, drones, etc. [/list]

[b]Small Craft:[/b]
[list](2) Long Range Interceptors [color=#BF0000](???)[/color]
(2) 15-ton Capacity Knuckle Boom Crane with Active Heave Compensation
(1) Ordnance fork lift/tractor[/list]

[attachment=0]PFG Callout.jpg[/attachment]

[b]PFG Mission:[/b]
Sea Control (blue water and costal ASW, VBSS, maritime patrol) and power projection (fire support).

[list]1. Sea Control Operations
[list]a. Destroy or neutralize enemy air, surface, subsurface threats
b. Enforce Quarantines, and Blockades (VBSS) [/list]
2. Advance Force Operations
[list]a. Screen the area of operations against enemy air, surface, subsurface threats
b. Persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance of the area of operations
[list](1) Conduct EW/ELINT in the area of operations
(2) Support SOF and National Special Mission Unit operations in the area of operations[/list]
c. Fire support[/list]
3. Support to civilian authorities (including transport, fuel, communications, maintenance…)
[list]a. Law enforcement forces (counter-drug, anti-piracy, counter-illegal immigration)
b. Disaster relief
c. Humanitarian missions[/list][/list]

Comments???