SumGui wrote:
FF4923 is not a bad combination of capabilities on the existing hull...but I believe the NSC needs extra length to get 32-48 Mk 41 cells, improved main gun, layered defense against small boats (secondary medium caliber guns), and deck space for Anti-ship Missiles (Harpoon or NSM).
I have been talking with an HII engineer, and it is feasible to lengthen the helo hangar by "the length of 16 Mk41 VLS and buffer" to accommodate 16 VLS and extra length by consuming some of the helo landing pad.
SumGui wrote:
You can leave them empty until needed, but when you need more cells because the threat changed or the environment got hotter, it is too late to add them.
I agree. Thirty-two should be great. This can wash around ESSM, LRASM, and VLASROC. ESSM offers the equivalent of 4 SM-1s per cell. The rest are as they appear.
SumGui wrote:
I'd think one Millennium Gun forward and one on the hangar roof would do the trick.
I agree. If arranged in-line, there may be a crunch of space on the hangar to accommodate 16-cell VLS, SeaRAM, AND a Millennium Gun to the point where you might have to have 2 Millennium guns aft, one port and one starboard. Regardless, I would still slave the MG to the SeaRAM.
SumGui wrote:
The Helo hangar also needs to be sized for two SH-60 sized helos (NSC hangar is sized for Dauphins). Naturally, her two hangars gives you the ability to have one H-60 and UAVs, or any combination you may need.
The lengthening to accommodate the 16-cells would accommodate that as well. The forward most part of the hangar space would be slightly narrowed like on the DDG Flight IIAs. Easy day.
SumGui wrote:
A 9-cell rotating EASR should be considered as the primary radar (cost has to be considered, of course), keeping in mind this ship will not only take care of itself but probably escort others and be a node for the entire battle network of sensors in a given area.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/easr/I really dig the combination of the TRS-3D/TRS-4 and the SPQ-9B is an awesome combination for air and surface search with FC.
SumGui wrote:
This could be a reasonable Fire Support platform in another version, placing a second gun mount on the fantail and perhaps upgrading both guns to a 155mm version of the Mk 45, but the dollar commitment to make that happen may not be available.
If we were serious about the 155mm question, we could do it inside of 2 years. Look at the process of the Mk71, and that was done at a casual pace.
SumGui wrote:
Considering the increasing threats and myriad of roles Frigates are called on to perform for the USN, I think it may pay off as long as modification does not break the bank. (The bank being total unit price under $1B each across production)
I agree 100%!!! Many would try to compare this to LCS and discredit it to what they believe LCS offers for $400 million a piece. As time has passed, we know the LCS itself rolls in at well over $450 for the delivered ship, then there are all kinds of "Navy supplied equipment" that boosts the costs, and then finally the non-existent mission modules still have to be proven, installed, and effectively used. Once the ship is ready to go do a mission, the cost is pushed well over double the original cost. The NSC type FFG would be delivered ready to accomplish the missions without screwing around with the ship...just like a frigate should.