[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Posted by Ralph Wood on November 27, 2025, 12:39:44, in reply to "Re: Frigate"
I agree that the situation is not good. The leading problem is money. The Columbia class consumes around 40% of Navy acquisition. Congress has not properly funded the government, let alone the Navy. For developmental programs, a long term budget is required for stability. Congress has been funding through a series of continuing resolutions for a long time now. This means programs start, then stop, then start again but with a smaller budget, etc. So the situation is indeed not good.
Spending our money on expensive frigates which will not deliver needed numbers in the required time, and which don't really have a place in the force structure--when other more affordable options which can be produced more quickly and in greater numbers and are more useful are available--is a further waste of our funds, and simply adds to the messed up situation.
We need to cover large areas of the Pacific, and be able to take casualties. Numerous simulations have shown the Navy that a spread out networked force is the way to accomplish that. Frigates don't do this.
I see no reason to cling dogmatically to these ships. 
Previous Message
The frigates were and should be intended to be:
General purpose escorts
Convoys (wartime)
Amphib groups
CV groups
lone wolf
The Constellations did originally fit all those requirements, however the changes made them more expensive and slower eliminating the CV escort and lone wolf responsibilities.
Also be aware:
Coast Guard cancelled 1 National Security Cutter, 3 to 4 Off Shore Patrol cutters - add to that the fact that we were building 3 to 5 Burkes per year in the 90s and now struggle for 2 per year, and the original Burkes are at retirement age shows how bad the situation truly is. Previous Message
Frigate size does not mean a frigate.
Since 1975, in the US Navy, a frigate was the new designation given to a destroyer escort. And that is what the US Navy has considered them: escorts. Their role/purpose in the force structure was "supplemental escort." The Constellation design is exactly that. It is a cheaper ($1.5-"ish" billion) general purpose escort supplemental to the Burke ($2.2 billion) general purpose escort.
We don't want the new manned small combatants to escort. We want them to BE escorted by the new small unmanned ones. We will be forming something new. Groups of small ships operating independently of any carrier group, and networked to each other (and any nearby carrier or amphibious groups, to which they would not be attached.)
If you want them frigate sized, and want to call them frigates, great, so long as you understand what they do, and realize they are not "old tyme" frigates. Nor will they be built to frigate standards, nor function like frigates. And I would wonder if a larger corvette sized vessel might not also suffice? Though I would not call them corvettes either (any more than I consider the LCS a corvette.) This is why the term "Small Surface Combatant" is employed in the "paperwork" about them. Previous Message
FREMM/Constellation would be general-purpose ships, which could be used for a lot of different tasks - also combined with drones. They have the size to be upgraded with new systems.
The ships, which are currently built to deploy drones, are frigates (Mogami class) or look at least like frigates (Victory class).
What is the difference between a "Small Surface Combatants" which can deploy and control drones, and a frigate? I think that is only a question how the ship is equipped and how versatile and spacious the design is.
If such a ship should be capable to be deployed e.g. against China, it need a certain size, seakeeping capabilities, and range. I.e. a modern frigate...
Responses