"Conventional Frigates Are Dead Ships Sailing" Topic

"The current global crop of "conventional" frigates (which I loosely define as a multi-purpose combatant of somewhere in the vicinity of 2,000-4,500 tons), has reached something of a developmental dead end.

These ships cannot be improved–or, in the case of foreign models, brought into compliance with U.S. Navy standards and then improved–without a huge investment–An investment, I might add, that is totally out of proportion to any subsequent gains in the platform's overall combat capability/survivability.

Despite having more visible weapons than the average Flight 0+ LCS, the "international standard frigate" is also, well, still little more than cannon-fodder. Over the near-to-mid term, these "international standard frigates" the Navy chattering classes so admire, will, in any likely "local war under high-tech conditions", be sunk. And be sunk in great numbers…"
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

Although the author has quite an ax to grind, he's probably not far off about the "sunk in great numbers" part. At least in what Kirk Douglas calls "a gut-busting, mother-loving Navy war!" Those will eat up ships, especially fragile, disposable ones.

Interesting article.

Embrace the Small Boat

Yes, please.

The author neatly misses the point that the current "conventional frigate" is already a "cut down DDG-51" (and in many cases isn't cut down by much).

And "embrace the small boat?" purrleeasse! As has been shown time and time and time again, that stuff dies fast and horribly – and frequently in the past at the hands of the USN and the RN. Perhaps the author likes the idea of US navy service personnel dying in droves?

That is the conundrum I've been talking about. Any high-threat shooting environment means either accepting significant losses among the ships that aren't big enough to pack adequate defenses (like Fast Attack Craft or the LCS), or spending a whole lot of $$ building ships that are big enough to carry adequate defenses (like a Burke-class).

+1 Lion. And if you're prepared to accept significant losses, you need significant numbers well in advance. I don't see us cranking up naval production like we could in WWII. Would be nice to have the capability, though.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend Stealth1000!

Amicalement
Armand

One problem with debates of this kind is purpose. Anti-pirate patrols, anti-smuggler operations, general peacetime patrol work, showing the flag… these (and others) are all valid naval functions, especially in peacetime. Cost is always an issue, and if a few high cost ships don't have the numbers to carry out the peacetime operations then you need more lower cost ships.

It's really a case of having enough ships suitable for each role – in a 'hot' situation you withdraw the 'peacetime' navy and insert the 'wartime' navy. The peacetime ships then get to patrol quieter areas or stay back in case the wartime navy needs supports. In WW1, many navies had pre-dreadnoughts but they didn't suddenly get blown up or retired – you just didn't include them as part of your main battle line. Meanwhile, they did a good job in other areas.

Quantity has a quality all of it's own…

All warships are a trade off between mission, survivability and cost. Absent unlimited funds, you buy the best you can afford given the numbers you need to field.

Probably correct, if the opposition has anything better on or in the water, or aircraft in range of the frigate(s).