[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Posted by Francine on December 25, 2025, 8:32:45, in reply to "Re: Give up the Helos?"
Lets start with the practically of the situation:
1) I've reviewed the builder's drawings of the NSC (1/8 inch to the foot). Comparing the drawings of the proposed ship, I don't see any superstructure change. So, the NSF has a lower quarter deck, main deck, flight deck (01) level, top of hanger (02 or 03) and a smaller lower area next to the stack (02? level).
2) if you bolt on missile launchers on the quarter deck (which has a well in it), you might get 1 quad mobile VLS installed, which would be very exposed to flooding, which electronics hate.
3) the Naval Strike Missile launchers are larger then you think. The FREMM Constellations only took 4, and although there looks like space exists for more, weight is the problem. Realize that the NSF is only 418 feet long and displaces roughly 2,000 tons less than the Constellation. You may get 2 quads near the stack without affecting stability too much.
3) Lengthening the ship. One of the things that killed the Constellations. On the Burkes, they only lengthened the stern by extending the flight deck (mostly) with little change at the waterline.
That's it. There's no where else to put equipment. That's why the OH Perrys were not brought back, at displacement/load limit and the NSF is smaller. Ask anyone that has served on real ships or Naval Engineers and they will tell you that space and stability are critical on ships.
If The stated goal is to build an improved OH Perry (which a Naval Engineer on YouTube presents), I would buy your argument, as this is a larger ship. And no, I'm not talking about pulling old ships out of reserve, but new, updated ships - which should have been done 10 plus years ago. It has worked on the Burkes. 
Previous Message
Seriously, are you reading anything that has been written about these ships? Are you looking at any of the drawings? Do my links work? Slow down and read what I wrote, please. I wrote AFT of the helo deck (not over it.) They're not taking away the helicopter.
NSM fits on the LCS. It will fit on the new frigate. Whether 8 or 16 is what remains to be seen. The Freedom class LCS were lengthened after the first example. That did not kill them. The Burkes were lengthened. Also recently had their sterns widened. We still have those. Lengthening by itself is not a "death sentence." Modest alterations to the dimensions can be accomplished. We made some radical internal structural alterations to the FFG hull which necessitated the dimentional changes. And I speak of possible lengthening of the FFX. It is not certain. Just looks like that to me from one drawing. I might well be wrong.
Here's a list of the radars and systems on the USCG ship. It includes Nulka. Ought to then be on the frigate, too:
SPECIFICATIONS
C5ISR Systems
Coast Guard SeaCommander
• AN/SPS-79 surface search radar
• AN/SPS-75 air search radar
• Identification friend or foe transponder
• Electro-optical/infrared sensor system
• Automatic Identification System
• AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare suite
• Tactical Data Link (CDLMS)
• Navigation Distribution System (NAVSSI)
Communications
• Communications Management System (Symphony)
• MILSATCOM
• COMSATCOM
• Line of Sight (LOS)
Hull, Mechanical and Electrical Systems
Propulsion System
• Two MTU 20V 1163 marine diesel engines
• One General Electric LM2500 main gas turbine
Electrical System
• Three Caterpillar 3512B ship’s service diesel generators
Weapons System
• One Mk 160 gun fire-control system
• One Mk 110 57-mm naval gun system
• One Phalanx 20-mm close-in weapon system
• Two Mk 53 Nulka decoy launching systems
• Two Mk 36 Super Rapid Blooming Offboard Countermeasures
chaff launching systems
• Four .50-caliber machine guns
• Two M240B 7.62-mm machine guns
Your mistrust is justified. I understand. Time will tell. Previous Message
If they build a platform over the helo deck, that eliminates any ASW the ship might have had, as well as Surface attack helos.
This is not a pretty picture.
Also the NSM launchers are larger then you think, they take up a considerable piece of real estate on the FREMMS (FFG 62). They would also need targeting radars, control apparatus and NULKA (chaff launchers) for last ditch defense.
Also you speak of lengthening the ship - that's what helped kill the FREMM.
I'm sorry, I don't have faith in these people after: Zumwalt, Independence, Freedom, Ford and now Constellation class failures. Previous Message
Are you looking at the ship's stern? Aft of the helo deck on the cutters, there is a boat deck (boat well, actually.) A platform will be built over that, per USNI. Most frigate illustrations then show 2 quad NSM launchers there (8 missiles.) And if you look at that space on cutter photos, that is about all there is room for. However, the overhead view drawing, looking down on that platform aft of the helo deck shows more room (and more NSMs, with additional space aft of them.) If this illustration is correct, the stern will be lengthened. If not, then it will be one mighty small platform over that boat well. Since there are zero images of the actual design at this point, we are all working from fiction for our assumptions. I consider USNI a reasonable source. They say there will be a platform there. Drawings do not show details, but do show NSMs of some number, showing it is intended to be there. That is all I can then tell you about this platform until more reliable info is put out. A platform of some unknown dimensions will be put over the stern boat well, per a reasonable source, and most drawings. (I suspect you are looking where the launches are stowed on the superstructure? If so, "wrong boat deck." Look aft of the helo deck.)
The Perry class were long out of production by the 2010s. Reviving them would have been the same at that point as building a new design from scratch. Not much point repeating the old design given that choice. No, the Perrys had no growth potential, even when they were first built.
Yes, we are reduced to using an existing ddsign that is already in production for reasons of time and money. And yes, we are limited in the modifications we can do...at the outset. Major changes to the existing design are exactly what cost us the FFG. We need to get this into production urgently. It is "already in production" (only recently stopped) in a basic form. Minimal modification initially sees to it we have a higher chance of "keeping it" in production. Once we have done that, we can tinker with more drastic alterations, and implement them in future flights.
Examples given are the Burkes themselves, having been through multiple flights, being lengthened and given a hangar, and now new radars, etc. Another example would be the Fords. With the new radar they are to have, there is a good chance CVN-80's island will look substantially different from the one on the first two. Same basic hull, different island. Such alterations could well show up on future production frigates...superstructure alterations, lengthening (which may already be in the works) and so on. Later flights could well not look so much like this first flight. But, these alterations are better worked in to a production line item. Doing it all beforehand amounts to a new vessel, and we no longer have the luxury of the time and money it takes to create one of those. Previous Message
You state that we can "bolt" on this or that weapon and that would solve the problems. However, this ignores the problem that from the drawing, the deck they propose to bolt weapons to is either O1 or 02 level. You can't bolt that much weight on the upper structure of a small vessel before stability becomes an issue.
Prewar destroyers and even wartime cruisers had stability problems as antiaircraft guns and electronics were added.
Finally, the reason they didn't bring back the Perrys in the late 2010s was limited growth potential. This ship is the same size, maybe a little smaller. We're back to modifying an existing design. Previous Message
USMC counter drone system:
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024/12/17/this-marine-unit-now-has-its-own-tool-to-blast-drones-out-of-the-sky/
I see nothing here that could not also be ship mounted. Indeed, the Corps used their vehicle mounted system from an amphibious ship. A short step to placing it directly on the ship...
USMC efforts to ramp up their own drone units
https://defensescoop.com/2025/12/11/marine-corps-drone-operator-mos-retention-program/
There's your "3 Marines with an Xbox controller and drones." There are articles which show operators in the new MLRs.
This could just as easily be "3 sailors with an Xbox controller and drones" for shipboard use, should the Navy stand it up. Of course, the Marines are a sea service. If desired, a USMC detatchment can be placed shipboard. Former capital ships had USMC gunnery units aboard. Might one day be common to have a standing Marine drone unit on designated vessel types. Previous Message
So, all we need to stop China is 3 smart guys with an Xbox controller and a cheap drone?
They have spent the last decade at least carefully copying us, and fielding a carrier-centric battle force with large amphibious ships, plus a large number of small surface combatants to better control the "local sea space." Seems they should then be as vulnerable to this threat as we are, seeing as how the two forces are so similar. So, what's China up to in this regard? Or, are they also running behind the eternal see-saw between attack and defense?
The USMC is currently working to field its new Marine Littoral Regiments (MLRs.) Their goal is to sieze islands (unsinkable ships) and threaten passing shipping with all manner of antiship missiles. I am sure drones are probably in their thinking as well. You probably will indeed see "three Marines with an Xbox and drones" bothering the PLAN.
Our own counter to aerial and surface drones is currently the Mk 38 gun system. It has been retrofitted to the Burkes. It can just as easily be fitted to almost any other platform. As also mentioned, we have our eyes on lasers for the future. One article on the new frigates points out a place on drawings of them that looks reserved for a future laser system.
Another system we have--not at all well known--is the Hellfire system fitted to LCS. This system:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/u-s-navy-lcs-receive-upgraded-c-uas-hellfire-missiles/
Cheaper than RAM. Can stop both surface and aerial threats. Understand that even a laser can only engage one target at a time. A swarm, coming from multiple directions, can defeat them. Hellfire is fire and forget. They receive targetting info at launch, then seek out their target on their own. The entire magazine can be emptied against a swarm, and defeat each target simultaneously, indpendently, on their own. These launchers are "not the most complex things in the world" to install. And they're small enough that "more than one" should be able to be fitted to a hull like the new frigate's.
But, this a "baby steps" affair. We can't install anything on nonexisting hulls. So, we start with a hull we know we can produce. (We just produced ten of them...) We modify it as little as possible to suit the basics of its new role, both for cost reasons, and to kick off production. Then, we upgrade through succeeeding batches. Already, an ASW variant has been mentioned. More can certainly be done. Mk 38, Hellfire, and lasers when they're mature are not impossible to incorporate into this design. But, if we jump to the future right now, and try to go for the "whole package" on the first go, we will be exactly repeating the past mistakes of large, expensive, slow, unwieldy projects which do not even get off the ground. Previous Message
The littoral space has been proven extremely deadly. 3 smart guys, an Xbox controller, and a cheap drone can easily take out a surface combatant.
Hopefully, our very expensive ships with large, vulnerable crews are being made much more resistant to drone attacks and quickly.
It's well known that the tank community in many nations was shocked to see how easily drones can kill tanks and have been working very late nights trying to find ways to prevent $250 drones from easily killing multi-million dollar tanks and the their 4 crewmen.
Responses