SumGui wrote:
I think the standards set out in the RFI were perfectly reasonable to have a significantly capable multi-role ship at a reasonable cost.
While is is not inaccurate to think of this as 'High-Low' in regards to cost, it may be better to think "Tall and Wide" where the FFG will add width to the area of influence of the US Navy, and across the area of influence when higher point capability is needed, the 'tall' can come in - be that a Burke, ARG, or CVBG.
Placing Enterprise Air Search Radar (EASR) with the Aegis backbone allows each of these vessels to operate independently while reasonably well protected and integrate into fleet and group operations very well. They become a significant node in the broad network of sensors and capability.
My gripes with the items set out in the RFI are minor (endurance too low, is 57mm really the right choice...?)
I go back to this statement from a few months ago
I agree. The big questions are: what missions should this ship aim to execute? I believe they should fill the mission areas left vacuum by the decommissioning of the Perry-class FFGs without replacement. Because another FFG was not developed to replace the Perry FFGs at any ratio, large surface combatants have had to fill the vacuum. As a result, and as we know, large surface combatants have had to fill the rolls of small combatants. Again, as we know, this has stressed the fleet. Those missions are:
Peace Time:
- Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO)
- Presence
- MSC Escort
- C4ISR (passive and UAV ops)
War Time:
- ASuW
- NSFS (possible)
- Light Integrated ASW/AAW escort:
1) Strike/Battle Groups
2) MSC
3) Convoy
After working the concept around in my brains, I am leaning toward the minimal work that would likely be needed to adapt the Berthoff-class cutter into an FFG.
Attachment:
PatrolFFGsmall.jpg
The Berthoff already is a proven hull, has good sea-keeping, and already comes with a LOT of what an FFG would need and the margins to add the balance of equipment that would need to be on an FFG. The hard work has already been done; the forward gun mount can be upgunned to 76mm, there is already a weapons "pit" for 16 Mk41 VLS in the bow, the stern has a lot of room to support either RHIBs or a towed sonar array, its radar suite is already one of the best small radar combinations in the world. The only real additions I would make are adding deck mounted ASCMs (Harpoons in this case), beef up its PDS with 2 SeaRAM instead of 1 and 1 21-cell RAM launcher, and an additional 16 Mk41 VLS. It appears the only real engineering challenge would be lengthening the helo hangar by the length of an AA -size weapons module and inserting another 16 VLS cells between the stack and the hangar. If they just
must have the Longbow system, it could be a bolt-on module that fits on the notched stern with the Harpoons.
Concerning the gun, it would need to be decided early on if the Navy would want to give the ship an NSFS capability. If they did, a few developmental efforts would need to be taken early in the design. The bow gun position would need to be modular (ie SeaMod program) and make it an A-sized module so the 76mm could be replaced with a 5"/62caliber gun. In the case of being tasked with providing NSFS, I would give the ship the ability to use precision guided 5" rounds with the longest throw-range possible. That would call for funds to be dedicated for Dahlgren to finish the Course Corrective Fuse (CCF) application to the 5"/54 caliber projectile, and I would add the 5"/38 caliber projectile as well. With an ERGM charge, the 5"/54 round can achieve 19nm, and the 5"/38caliber round over 25nm. With the CCF, each would be GPS guided weapons at long ranges for the 5" gun. Unlike the canceled ERGM, that took up an entire cell in the 5" loader drum, the standard 5" rounds fitted with the CCF can be standard stacked, so it can achieve its designed 20 RPM for NGFS or counter-battery fire.
That is to say nothing of procuring the Excalibur Increment 1b 5" GPS/LG long range projectile...