054/A FFG Thread II

[Deleted member 13312]

I'm not sure if it's that simple or efficient to update a 1970s hull design like the Perry.

The bungling of LCS has left USN with no time to seek a clean-sheet solution, or appetite for the risk involved in that path, yet the candidates currently on the western market are less than ideal. The French and Italians are now pursuing "intermediate frigate" designs to follow on from the larger FREMMs, and of course the British plan to get around to Type 31 eventually, but in 2018 the pickings are slim indeed...

Still, it is a mess of USN's own making. Project management!

Well it is not going to be a walk in the park, but if the USN really wants a readily available "stopgap" frigate that is designed domestically (which they do), then a redesigned Perry is the best option until newer designs for a frigate can be produced.

There is no "tech from the Burke" that a rebuilt Perry can make use of. If anything, a rebuilt Perry for the USN should probably more closely emulate Turkey's G-class than anything related to the Burke.

There is the Mk41 vls which comes in several different variants of length, the Phalanx CIWS which is a compact system itself already. Plus it can use certain radar elements from the Burke like the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(V)2

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the AN/SPG-62 fire-control radar. In fact the Turkey G-glass also borrowed heavily from existing armaments found on the Burke itself

 

[Deleted member 13312]

That does not sound particularly simple. Whether you mean modifying existing hulls or building new hulls from the ground up, it is quite complex.

If the USN had chosen to make such a choice back in the early 2000s then maybe it would've been sensible. But by now, it makes more sense I think to adopt an off the shelf design for their new frigate.

It is easier then attempting to build a new frigate design. An off the shelf approach would do fine, but I expect the US shipyard lobby to torpedo any attempts of the USN to buy any foreign designed frigates.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

The resemblance is only from a broad sense.

But I don't think its about the appearance, but the very concept of a light but multi role, independent, ocean going warship that is more than just an ASW specialized vessel. The La Fayette class is probably the originator of the trend of modern stealthy Euro-frigate of today.

The sudden presence of this ship in Taiwan with the ROCN, and its consequent deep impression to the PLAN, likely inspired the Type 054.

Project 17 Shivalik reminds me more of the Type 054A, but is full of design whys --- no VLS for medium ranged SAMs, two S-band radars, VLS only for short ranged SAMs, etc,. Admiral Grigorovich is another that I see might have some vague similarity.

Admiral Grigorovich.

Project 17 Shivalik

As a additional note, I did say that the Type 54A and its successor would perhaps be among the last PLAN ships that derive its concept and design from either Russian or Western naval sources. China has come a long way from its humble beginnings, but it must be said that the greater part of its progress have been made easier by the fact that they can built upon well established concepts and designs, the Type 52D on the Burke and the La fayette for the Type 54A..
That is not the case now, it is clear that China's ship design are on a cusp of a fundamental change as they have finally caught up with the rest of the world. They will have to blaze new paths in terms of ship design and the such it will be very interesting to see what they will come up with in the decades to come.

 

[Tam]

Well it is not going to be a walk in the park, but if the USN really wants a readily available "stopgap" frigate that is designed domestically (which they do), then a redesigned Perry is the best option until newer designs for a frigate can be produced.


There is the Mk41 vls which comes in several different variants of length, the Phalanx CIWS which is a compact system itself already. Plus it can use certain radar elements from the Burke like the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(V)2

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the AN/SPG-62 fire-control radar. In fact the Turkey G-glass also borrowed heavily from existing armaments found on the Burke itself

SPS-67 doesn't add to anything what the Perry has, which is the venerable SPS-49 air search radar and the SPS-55 which is primarily used for navigation. While the Burkes use the SPS-67 on top of the SPY-1 radars, the Ticos on the other hand, use the SPS-49 and SPS-55 on top of the SPY-1, same radars with the Perry. The SPS-49 has been through numerous versions and upgrades, so the Perry upgrade to this would be to replace the older version with the newer version, preferably, V2 or V3 to V9.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The SPS-55 can be upgraded to the SPS-73.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Support for Standard SM-2 is achieved by upgrading the Mk. 92 fire control system which is actually a dual set.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Mk.92 is really a Thales design. I think this can be replaced with this.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

STIR 240, like the Mk 92, is both a gun and missile fire control system and is capable of lighting up targets for ESSM and Standard SM-2. No need for SPG-62.

Turkish G-class frigates didn't use any Burke technologies. Its SPS-49 is replaced with the Thales SMART-S.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Another search radar replacement I can think of would be this, the Thales MRR 3D.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Other countries have done Mk. 41 VLS modifications on their Perrys, like Australia with the Adelaide frigates. So that's doable.

 

[Tam]

It is easier then attempting to build a new frigate design. An off the shelf approach would do fine, but I expect the US shipyard lobby to torpedo any attempts of the USN to buy any foreign designed frigates.

Except when said US shipyard is in cahoots with the foreign ship maker, or is owned by the foreign ship maker.

The FREMM entrant for example, by Fincantieri, which is Italian ship maker. Fincantieri happens to own Marine Marinette as majority stock holder, with Lockheed Martin only as the minority. Same shipyard will also make Lockheed Martin's own entrant, so it has two stakes there.

Independence class LCS has always been a "foreign" design. Its made by Austal USA, which is a subsidiary of Austal, a shipmaker in Australia. Austal specializes in catamarans and trimarans, such as large commercial ones.

The Spanish Navantia entrant is partnered with Bath Iron Works and General Dynamics.

Atlas North America's entrant is a design by Thyssenkrupp. Should be noted that Atlas, which supplies ASW equipment to the US Navy is now owned by Thyssenkrupp. They are partnered with VT Halter shipyards.

I myself favor the Hunter Ingalls entrant, which is based on the Legend class cutters used with the US Coast Guard. HI has been trying to market a militarized version as the "Patrol Frigate" for years to the export market, but has never succeeded so. The design of this has seen numerous changes over the years in defense exhibits.

 

[Iron Man]

There is the Mk41 vls which comes in several different variants of length, the Phalanx CIWS which is a compact system itself already. Plus it can use certain radar elements from the Burke like the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(V)2

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the AN/SPG-62 fire-control radar. In fact the Turkey G-glass also borrowed heavily from existing armaments found on the Burke itself

None of the systems you mentioned are unique to the Burke. All were already present on the Ticonderoga class. Your statement that the Turkish G-class "borrowed heavily from existing armaments found on the Burke" is patently false given the added systems were first pioneered on the Ticonderoga. This is a reputable forum for legitimate discussion. These types of claims that are absurdly and demonstrably false detract from the reputation of SDF. Please do your research before you make these kinds of claims.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

None of the systems you mentioned are unique to the Burke. All were already present on the Ticonderoga class. Your statement that the Turkish G-class "borrowed heavily from existing armaments found on the Burke" is patently false given the added systems were first pioneered on the Ticonderoga. This is a reputable forum for legitimate discussion. These types of claims that are absurdly and demonstrably false detract from the reputation of SDF. Please do your research before you make these kinds of claims.

Nice of you to change the goalpost from the G-class to the Ticonderoga here. How about we go all the way to the first prototype mounted on the Norton Sound shall we ?
And it takes some literary incompetence to read "technology found on the Burke" as "technology unique only to the Burke".

 

[adeptitus]

I don’t see any resemblance the type 54A has to the La Fayette, the 054 heavily influenced by the French frigate pioneering stealth design, yes but no connection to it.

People make the comparison between 054 to La Fayette because much of the hardware and tech was sourced from France and used on their ships. Examples include:

DRBV-15 Sea Tiger radar
Castor-II fire-control radar
TAVITAC combat data system
100mm naval gun
Sea Crotale SAM (HQ-7)
SEMT Pielstick Diesel engines
AS565/Z-9C helicopter
Helicopter handling system
Etc.

But this is largely irreverent today as the 054 was a limited production of only 2 ships. By 054A much of the French sources systems were replaced.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Except when said US shipyard is in cahoots with the foreign ship maker, or is owned by the foreign ship maker.

The FREMM entrant for example, by Fincantieri, which is Italian ship maker. Fincantieri happens to own Marine Marinette as majority stock holder, with Lockheed Martin only as the minority. Same shipyard will also make Lockheed Martin's own entrant, so it has two stakes there.

Independence class LCS has always been a "foreign" design. Its made by Austal USA, which is a subsidiary of Austal, a shipmaker in Australia. Austal specializes in catamarans and trimarans, such as large commercial ones.

The Spanish Navantia entrant is partnered with Bath Iron Works and General Dynamics.

Atlas North America's entrant is a design by Thyssenkrupp. Should be noted that Atlas, which supplies ASW equipment to the US Navy is now owned by Thyssenkrupp. They are partnered with VT Halter shipyards.

I myself favor the Hunter Ingalls entrant, which is based on the Legend class cutters used with the US Coast Guard. HI has been trying to market a militarized version as the "Patrol Frigate" for years to the export market, but has never succeeded so. The design of this has seen numerous changes over the years in defense exhibits.

Personally I don't see the Independence class as a foreign design simply because it adopts a trimaran hull similar to the Austal ship. Ship designs are not inherently unique to a particular ship builder.
Insofar the military industrial complex of the US has been accepting of the LCS, if only for the reason that 2 major domestic defense contractors have significant stakes in them. I did imagine the uproar to be significant if the USN acquire a foreign off the shelf design with no major input from domestic builders.

 

[Tam]

Personally I don't see the Independence class as a foreign design simply because it adopts a trimaran hull similar to the Austal ship. Ship designs are not inherently unique to a particular ship builder.
Insofar the military industrial complex of the US has been accepting of the LCS, if only for the reason that 2 major domestic defense contractors have significant stakes in them. I did imagine the uproar to be significant if the USN acquire a foreign off the shelf design with no major input from domestic builders.

Yes but not every ship builder --- if any --- has this catamaran-trimaran takeover of the world of shipping vision like Austal has. Furthermore the Australians seems to have this manner of hull as a speciality, as even the Type 022 Houbei may have roots in Australian technology in this sphere.

The two shipyards that make the two classes of LCS, are both owned by foreign ship makers ---- Austal USA is a subsidiary of Austal of Australia, and Marine Marinette has Italy's Fincantieri as its majority shareholder. The other shipyards are partnering with foreign ship makers, like Bath with Navantia, and VT Halter with Atlas and Thyssenkrupp.