# USN Eliminating Frigates?



## Kirkhill (18 Jul 2006)

> The frigate is expected to disappear from the active fleet by 2016 and entirely from the Reserve fleet by 2021.



This was the closing line from an article by Jack Dorsey on HamptonRoads.com. The article was talking about the success of the SeaSwap programme (multiple crews per vessel and flying them to the vessel which stays on station rather than returning to home port after it has been replaced on station by another vessel).

While the process was efficient and cost effective there were just too many complications for large vessels like destroyers and up.  For frigates and down it seemed to be a good match for the USN.

It would apparently be a particularly good match for the Littoral Combat Ships with their small crews.  Apparently, using the Sea Swap system the USN would only have to build 56 LCS vessels to achieve the same effect as 106 single-crew vessels.  The cost savings would be 14 Billion USD in construction and start up costs and 500 Million USD annually.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=107487&ran=81134

With the Canadian Navy looking at newer vessels with, potentially, smaller crews - even the JSS seems to be slated for a crew smaller than current frigates in Canadian service and vessels, 6200 tonne Danish Patrol Ships with a complement of <100, Norwegian Ice-breaking patrol vessels and  Kiwi MRVs and OPVs with crews of 50 to 60, even Amphibious Transports like the Rotterdams of 12000 to 20,000 tonnes only have complements of about 100. - does this have implications for the nature of Canada's fleet of frigates and destroyers and the way the Navy does business?

Can anyone confirm that the USN is indeed getting out of the frigate business?

I note that the Dutch LCF Air Defence Frigate of 6050 tonnes has a complement of 227.   

Is it possible to suggest that the SCSC programme might benefit from an enlarged Air Defence component - say 6 vessels with large permanent crews like the Dutch LCF - and 10 plus vessels outfitted like the Danish Patrol Ships with multiples smaller crews and flexible weapons/facility fits?

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/products.html#
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/0622_PatrolShips.htm

Would the concept apply equally well to other station keeping vessels like Offshore Patrol Vessels and Ice-Breaking Northern Patrol Vessels?  

How about for Amphibious Transport Ships? How much of their time is going to be spent dockside, in transit and station-keeping?
If only used occasionally perhaps reserve crews are in order.  If most of their service life is going to be sitting idle as a support platform in a threat-environment then perhaps multiple reg crews are required.  If spending their time predominantly in transit in "secure" waters then maybe civilians are the order of the day with reg/reserve crews for when they are used in high threat environments.

That one line seemed to open up a host of intriguing discussions.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jul 2006)

I recently was in Ft Lauderdale for Fleetweek.  While there we hosted some of our USN counterparts from USS Shereveport.  I struck up a conversation with one of the DC1's he explained that there is a program in the works for the USN where they are going to reduce the number of classes of ships in order to operate/fight more effectively.  I cannot remember the acronymn right now, but they intend to go from 12 classes to 5.  This will entail joining the capabililties of several ships into one ie: frigate/destroyer/cruiser into one all around class.  I cannot remember specific combinations but that example should give you some sort of idea.  This also is being forced upon them as they are having to further reduce the size of the their Navy.  He made it sound if there were going to be some substancial reductions of numbers, so I expect it is budget driven overall.

There also have been some who have mentioned the CDS mentioning the BHS, which I believe refer to the new San Antonio class LPD.  They will have a smaller crew size as they are using some cutting edge tech to enable a reduced crew to operate.  I was on her as well for a tour.  She is very large and very impressive.  There have been some flies in the ointment however.  Because it is so cutting edge, they are having software headaches etc and she is not doing what she is supposed to do at times.  This is causing no end of cost overruns, at present I am told it is around the $17B mark and rising in costs for the first one, LPD 17.  She has been in the USN's hands for one year so far and still is not fully operational.  They will I am sure in due course get the bugs out and will be happy with the new ships.  Her sisters to follow will of course be cheaper too I am told. This is right now their version of the money pit Submarie program we are experiencing.  I did make mention perhaps there werer those here who would like to obtain one or two of these engineering marvels, I was greeted with hoots of laughter and told well they have to build them first.  It would be some time before we would see the possiblilty of getting our hands on these, and the costs would be prohibitive for some time too.


----------



## Neill McKay (18 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Would the concept apply equally well to other station keeping vessels like Offshore Patrol Vessels and Ice-Breaking Northern Patrol Vessels?



The Coast Guard already does this with its icebreakers.  The crews (typically) work four weeks on/four weeks off, so there's a crew change every month.


----------



## karl28 (18 Jul 2006)

Its an interesting idea having ships constantly on patrol but wouldn't that  add even more wear and tear to them ?


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jul 2006)

Yes and no.  They are like people in some ways.  Use it or lose it comes to mind.  Some systems on a ship do not fare well when they are shut down and seem to be happier running.  Of course the structure of the ship is like your joints and bones, it does take some punishment from the movement of the sea and exposure to salt air/water and over time you can see evidence of that.  Cracks and metal rust out for example.  It is sort of a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't scenario, in some respects the ship will do better running but in other ways will pay a price that will have to be taken care of down the road.  There are more examples and I am sure others in this forum can add to the list. 

The Upholders sitting idle for those years while our decision makers dithered has made their reactivation more difficult than it could have been.  Your car probably runs better when it is being used on a regular basis than if it has been sitting for an extended period of time.


----------



## chanman (20 Jul 2006)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I cannot remember the acronymn right now, but they intend to go from 12 classes to 5.



Is that only surface combatants?

Well, the Kidds have been sold and the Spruances are retiring, so that's two down.  If they let the Burkes eventually replace the Ticonderogas, that's three.  Getting out of the Perry FFG's would be 4, and I think they've already put away all their CGN's and Sturgeons.  Retiring the big E and the rest of the Kittyhawks, the rest of the LA class and maybe just motballing the Seawolf subs?

So if we include only currently existing platforms, the 5 remaining will be the Nimitz, Burkes, Ohios, Virginias... but adding the amphibs and support vessels would still be far more than 5.  What are those numbers comprised of?  ???


----------



## karl28 (20 Jul 2006)

jollyjacktar   thanks man for the heads up on that didn't quite look at it that way .


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jul 2006)

And Chanman - how would the DDX and LCS platforms fit into the list?

LCS, DDX, CVN, LHA, LPD?


----------



## chanman (20 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And Chanman - how would the DDX and LCS platforms fit into the list?
> 
> LCS, DDX, CVN, LHA, LPD?



well, that was my question; it seems impossible for the USN to fill all its current roles with 5 platforms (or even 12) and I was only working with classes that are in service.

So,  ???


----------



## baboon6 (20 Jul 2006)

chanman said:
			
		

> Is that only surface combatants?
> 
> Well, the Kidds have been sold and the Spruances are retiring, so that's two down.  If they let the Burkes eventually replace the Ticonderogas, that's three.  Getting out of the Perry FFG's would be 4, and I think they've already put away all their CGN's and Sturgeons.  Retiring the big E and the rest of the Kittyhawks, the rest of the LA class and maybe just motballing the Seawolf subs?
> 
> So if we include only currently existing platforms, the 5 remaining will be the Nimitz, Burkes, Ohios, Virginias... but adding the amphibs and support vessels would still be far more than 5.  What are those numbers comprised of?  ???



I haven't read or heard anything about Burkes replacing Ticonderogas.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Jul 2006)

The Burkes were not developed to replace the Ticos the SC21 will replace the Ticos down the road. The LAs will be around for a long time to come, you won't see those replace to the follow up class to the Virginia class comes online.


----------



## chanman (20 Jul 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The Burkes were not developed to replace the Ticos the SC21 will replace the Ticos down the road. The LAs will be around for a long time to come, you won't see those replace to the follow up class to the Virginia class comes online.



Ah, I was looking at how they could conceivably "go from 12 classes to 5" not exactly replace them, so I looked at how many classes they could reduce their fleet by if they didn't replace the classes where they have started to decommision ships.  I apologize for any confusion caused.

btw, the non-VLS Ticos (CG47-51) have already been decommissioned, as have 12 of the earlier LA class.  The first Viginia is commisioned, with the second, USS Texas, to follow this year, but a lot of the decommisioned LAs were stricken back in the 90's starting from around '95.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Jul 2006)

> btw, the non-VLS Ticos (CG47-51) have already been decommissioned, as have 12 of the earlier LA class.  The first Viginia is commisioned, with the second, USS Texas, to follow this year, but a lot of the decommisioned LAs were stricken back in the 90's starting from around '95.



Yup I know...


----------



## chanman (20 Jul 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Yup I know...



Just saying that while the classes might be around for a while longer, they've started the process of retiring them and all.

Out of curiosity, how does the USN differentiate whether a ship is a frigate, destroyer or cruiser? The Ticos displace about the same as the Kidds, and the pre-VLS cruisers look similarly armed as well.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Jul 2006)

And yes while the classes will be retired, all classes are eventually retired. Look at the age of some of the Perry class frigates and the Ticoonderoga's. If a ship cannot keep up pace with todays threat, then they are doing the right thing in retiring the older ships of those classes. We could learn something from it.

1) By mission purpose
2) Size and tonnage


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Jul 2006)

Chanman, this conversation with my opposite took place during a tour of his ship.  As he is a skimmer (surface sailor) I would expect he was talking about that fleet.  He was saying it was to make the logistical/maintainence/training aspect much more efficent.  Makes sense.  We are looking at combining the 280 and CPF capabilites into one ship.


----------



## big bad john (24 Sep 2006)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16742938.1131572689.Q3Jt0cOa9dUAAHzOZ4o&modele=jdc_34

Navy Christens Littoral Combat Ship Freedom 
  
  
(Source: US Navy; issued Sept. 21, 2006)
  
   
  

Freedom, the US Navy’s first Littoral Combat Ship, was launched today, Sept. 23, at Marinette Marine's yard in Marinette, Wis. (Lockheed Martin photo)The U.S. Navy will christen Freedom, the first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) at 10 a.m. CDT on Saturday, Sept. 23, during a ceremony at Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, Wis.  

The future USS Freedom acknowledges the enduring foundation of our nation and honors American communities from coast to coast which bear the name Freedom. States having towns named Freedom include California, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The 378-foot Freedom will be the first U.S. Navy ship to carry this class designation.  

Birgit Smith will serve as ship’s sponsor. She is the widow of Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, who was killed in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. The ceremony will be highlighted by Smith breaking a bottle of champagne across the bow to formally christen the ship, which is a time-honored Navy tradition. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen will deliver the principal address at the ceremony.  

A fast, agile, and high-technology surface combatant, Freedom will act as a platform for launch and recovery of manned and unmanned vehicles. Its modular design will support interchangeable mission packages, allowing the ship to be reconfigured for antisubmarine warfare, mine warfare, or surface warfare missions on an as-needed basis. The LCS will be able to swap out mission packages pierside in a matter of hours, adapting as the tactical situation demands. These ships will also feature advanced networking capability to share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines and joint units.  

Freedom is the first of two LCS seaframes being produced. Freedom is an innovative combatant designed to operate quickly in shallow water environments to counter challenging threats in coastal regions, specifically mines, submarines and fast surface craft. The LCS is capable of speeds in excess of 40 knots and can operate in water less than 20 feet deep.  

Freedom will be manned by one of two rotational crews, blue and gold, similar to the rotational crews assigned to Trident submarines. The crews will be augmented by one of three mission package crews during focused mission assignments. The blue crew commanding officer is Cmdr. Donald Gabrielson, who was born in northern Minnesota and graduated from the U.S. Navy Academy in 1989. The gold crew commanding officer is Cmdr. Michael Doran, who was born in Harrisonville, Mo., and graduated from Villanova University in 1989. Upon the ship’s commissioning in 2007, Freedom will be home-ported at Naval Station San Diego, Calif.  

In May 2004, the Department of Defense awarded both Lockheed Martin Corp., Maritime Systems & Sensors in Moorestown, N.J., and General Dynamics - Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine, separate contract options for final system design, with options for detail design and construction of up to two flight 0 LCS ships.  

In December 2004, the Navy awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. the contract for detail design and construction of the first LCS. Lockheed Martin’s teammates include Gibbs & Cox in Arlington, Va.; Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, Wis., where the ship is being built; and Bollinger Shipyards in Lockport, La.  

-ends-


----------



## Navy_Blue (27 Sep 2006)

"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet"

A Frigate by any other name is still a frigate.

378ft is kinda in the realm of a small frigate.


----------



## chanman (27 Sep 2006)

Its armament looks closer to a corvette than a frigate though


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Sep 2006)

chanman said:
			
		

> Its armament looks closer to a corvette than a frigate though



The weapons fit is mission flex and interchangeable. The ship can ruin a few parties simultaneously with very little effort from a considerable distance.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Sep 2006)

Frigates....Destroyers...Cruisers...the designations are being blurred with time. Take for instance the Arliegh Burke class destroyer, you will find its the same size if not a little bigger then a WW1era US battleship. Our Halifax class frigates are bigger then some destroyers of other nations.



			
				chanman said:
			
		

> Its armament looks closer to a corvette than a frigate though



And whats a proper corvettes armament? Have you seen what the Israelis put on their corvettes?


----------



## chanman (28 Sep 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Frigates....Destroyers...Cruisers...the designations are being blurred with time. Take for instance the Arliegh Burke class destroyer, you will find its the same size if not a little bigger then a WW1era US battleship. Our Halifax class frigates are bigger then some destroyers of other nations.



You don't need to go to other nations.  Our Halifax frigates are larger than our own destroyers, and are slightly larger in all dimensions the Jane's recognition guide gives.

I didn't actually realize how light some frigates are, thinking of ships like the European and Canadian frigates that overlapped in size with destroyers (although as previously noted, Spruance, Burke, and Kidd class destroyers and some Russian vessels displace much closer to a Ticonderoga than anything classified as a frigate)

I also did not expect the size of the corvettes listed to vary in dispacement so much, the displacement of the LCS look like they would fit between a small frigate and a large corvette.



> And whats a proper corvettes armament? Have you seen what the Israelis put on their corvettes?



I saw, I was just a bit surprised at the light armament - no ASMs for example, and given the mention of working in littoral waters, I was a bit surprised at the use of .50 cals instead of their larger 25mm guns.  

*shrug*  maybe it's just me.  I checked again and found many corvettes mounted ASMs as well, so I guess I stand corrected.  The RAM and gun armament just looks like something you'd find on coastal patrol boat.  (Ignoring the LCS's hangers)

I was looking at the armament listed here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs-specs.htm


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Sep 2006)

Try this one for corvette armament:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/saar5/

Some coastal patrol boats are fitted with SSMs. Take a look at some of African navies. A lot of their IPV and OPVs are fitted with Exocets.


----------



## chanman (28 Sep 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Try this one for corvette armament:
> 
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/saar5/
> 
> Some coastal patrol boats are fitted with SSMs. Take a look at some of African navies. A lot of their IPV and OPVs are fitted with Exocets.



I've seen; some of the Russian and Chinese missile boats with the old Silkworms just look ridiculously be-weaponed, but I digress.

I wonder if the USCG might eventually make use of those hulls - it's fast, has a hanger, and the gun armament wouldn't be unusual in the USCG (I'd assume they would remove the RAM and torpedoes)

Will the LCS-2 class be the first modern trimaran warship?  

Interestingly, http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/trimaran/ has a caption saying the Triton is 2/3rds the size of a full scale warship, which would match the length of the LCS-2


----------



## warspite (29 Sep 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Frigates....Destroyers...Cruisers...the designations are being blurred with time. Take for instance the Arliegh Burke class destroyer, you will find its the same size if not a little bigger then a WW1era US battleship. Our Halifax class frigates are bigger then some destroyers of other nations.


Is there any set definition for warships anymore? Sort of like first rate, second rate, third rate ships being ships of the line and 4th 5th and 6th rates being frigates* during the 18th century.
*yes I know that the terms don't match modern warships (the term frigate having died out in the mid 19th century, it returned to use during WWII to classify anti submarine ships between a corvette and a destroyer)


----------



## Go Navy (29 Sep 2006)

Gents,

Destroyer vs Frigate is more a function of armament and capability than it is of weight and dimension.  The Destroyer in our case has that reach-out-and-touch-someone capability in Area Air Defence that the Frigates only have a Self Defence capability of, however, the Frigates do have the Harpoon over the horizon anti-surface capability...  So we blur the lines a bit here.  The real difference with us is that the Destroyers are vastly more capable when it comes to Communications - that corner-stone upon which all missions depend.  The number and types of radios may be forever in flux, but the interface with those assets is the advantage the Destroyers have in their Operations Room.

I have more years in Destroyers and I do months in our Frigates, and would sail a destroyer any day.  Upgrading the capabilities of the Frigates boils down to some space issues, but more so to her reach, in that her smaller mast limits some of her expandability wrt communications capabilities.

As for the swapping of crews.  We have already done this.  Mind you it was back in the early 90's with the first Gulf War, and it was a Destroyer, and there were issues, but what do you expect from a first try.  The British and Americans do something else with their submarine fleets, in that they have the Red Gold and Blue crews.  Essentially 1 and a half crews per boat.  This permits a half crew swap at some point in a ship's operational tour, with the crew coming home for leave, courses or other professional development, and all the other reasons we have to come home.  The ship benefits in that there is always half of the crew conversant with the current machinery state.  Not paper conversant like a full crew changeout would be, but actual on the plates, hands on familiar.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Sep 2006)

Hopefully the next Canadian warship class will combine the advantages of the 280 and the Halifax classes in one happy hull but I have no doubt money will end up being the governing factor and the good intentions of the Admirals will make the SSC more of a bastard child in concept and lacking the utility we need.


----------

