Home » Budget Industry » DSEI: Royal Navy Wants to Pitch Type-31e Frigate Design to U.S., Export Market


DSEI: Royal Navy Wants to Pitch Type-31e Frigate Design to U.S., Export Market

BMT Defence bid for the Royal Navy Type 31E Frigate

LONDON — The Royal Navy’s planned Type-31e light frigate will transform the dismal export record of U.K.-based shipbuilders, a senior government minister told attendees at the DSEI exhibition in London. U.K. defense secretary Sir Michael Fallon said that Britain’s shipyards have not built a frigate for another country since the 1970s.

“We’re changing all that”, he declared in a keynote speech on Wednesday.
“This frigate will rock the exports boat and it’s a model for the way we will approach shipbuilding in future.”

The U.S. Navy is among potential overseas customers being courted by U.K. government officials and industry executives for the cut-price combatant, which is intended (in RN guise) to cost no more than $330 million per unit.

Naval Sea Systems Command has issued outline requirements for a multi-mission frigate with an unrefueled range of between 4,500 nautical miles and 6,500 nautical miles at 16 knots, capable of escorting convoys between the United States and Europe. The Type 31e will have a maximum range at the upper end of the U.S. requirement, according to specifications released by the Royal Navy last week.


Spartan Light Frigate Design for Type 31e bid.
Steller System Photo

Among companies vying for the Type 31e design contract is Babcock International, which this week unveiled proposals for a 120-meter, 4,000-ton rapidly reconfigurable warship with multiple mission bays; deck space for eight surface-to-surface missiles, 16 vertical launch cells and a 5-inch gun; a flight deck large enough for a V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and hanger for MH-60 Seahawk helicopter; and launch/recovery facilities for unmanned vehicles.

Babcock claims that its Arrowhead 120 design will reduce through-life costs by embedding real-time equipment health monitoring sensors during the build process, allowing information about key systems to be gathered during deployments to inform subsequent maintenance periods.

With transatlantic exports in mind, the company also points to its collaborative venture with Florida-based Eastern Shipbuilding to design a new offshore patrol cutter for the U.S. Coast Guard.

Craig Lockhart, the managing director of Babcock’s Naval Marine business, said that an advisor for U.S. naval procurement had expressed interest in the Arrowhead design, and specifically its innovative ‘iFrigate’ platform monitoring system, at the DSEI event.

Arrowhead frigate design for Royal Navy Type 31E competition. Babcock Photo

Their conversation was a “first glimpse” of NAVSEA’s evolving expectations for a future light frigate, Lockhart told USNI News. “They’ll be getting feedback from the Littoral Combat Ship program and taking all that into consideration.”

The U.K. Ministry of Defence plans to order at least five Type 31e frigates for the Royal Navy, replacing a similar number of aging Type 23 general purpose frigates.

Core requirements include a point defense missile system or close-in weapon system designed to thwart the kind of attack that might be anticipated in maritime constabulary operations, together with medium and small caliber guns capable of engaging fast attack craft, and provision for a hull-mounted sonar.

An open architecture combat system is also mandatory for the Type 31e, which will have a crew of 80 to 100 plus accommodation for an additional 40 mission-specific personnel.

Formal procurement activities in the U.K. are scheduled to start in the first quarter of 2018, followed by a competitive design phase in the second quarter and the award of a design and build contract in the first quarter of 2019. The first of the new ships are planned to enter service in 2023.

In his keynote address, Fallon said: “It’s time to build exportability into our thinking from the off, aligning it with the requirements of international clients, allowing for the open architecture that can plug and play with different bits of capability.

“This is a competition. I want to see great companies competing to lower the cost”, the minister added. Other contenders include BAE Systems, BMT Group and Steller Systems.

Royal Navy Type-26 Frigate

The Royal Navy’s new light frigates – like all its complex warships – will be manufactured in the U.K. although units destined for export may be built overseas, perhaps with training or support packages provided from Britain.

Meanwhile, in July this year, BAE Systems started building the first of eight large Type 26 frigates optimised for anti-submarine warfare, designed primarily to escort the U.K.’s ballistic nuclear missile submarines and the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

The Type 26 program is expected to cost in excess of $10.5 billion, with first-of-class HMS Glasgow due to enter service in the mid-2020s.

  • DaSaint

    Can’t see the USN selecting one of these ‘General Purpose Light Frigate’ designs. From a purely design standpoint, the Spartan is interesting. I’m disappointed at the BMT design, particularly the limited firing arc of the forward gun. BMT is an excellent shop, and they know better.

    Frankly, if I had to make the decision, I’d select the Type 26/Global, albeit expensive. My second choice would be the Italian FREMM. I think that both Australia and Canada will select the Type 26, and if they do, I think that a USN selection would follow suit.

    • Yup I agree. National pride and capability is at stake.

    • Ron5

      Of cause they won’t, these British ships are for chasing slow pirates. No use for anything else.

      • El Kabong

        Are you saying the RN is building an LCS?

        • Ron5

          Worse.

          • El Kabong

            Hmm… I’ll wait to see what the actual specifications and performance criteria are, and see where it goes from there, before judging it.

          • Ron5

            Try google. They’re available.

    • LowObservable

      The Navantia F105 from what I’m hearing is the preferred contender for the RAN for their SEA5000 Future Frigate programme — for commonality with the F-100 derived Aegis AWD Destroyers (Hobart Class).

      • DaSaint

        That may make sense from a logistical perspective, but there is some dissatisfaction regarding Navantia and the LHDs. Regardless of platform, they will all have US weapons fits.

        • El_Sid

          Comes down to who they’re least upset with, the Aussies haven’t had a good time with Navantia or BAE. It probably comes down to whether they’re prepared to pay extra for a ship that’s really optimised for ASW. There’s no substitute for designing for ASW from the bottom up as the T26 is, the Aussies have been making noises about ASW of late but of course the beancounters have the final say.

          • DaSaint

            Neither the Spaniards nor the Italians have been known for designing good ASW ships, so the Brits have them both beat on that point. If ASW is the priority, and they can get the cost right, the Type 26/Global makes sense. Would be interesting to see the major commonwealth navies select the same hull form. Last time that happened was the Leander class of frigates, if memory serves me correctly.

          • El_Sid

            Leanders and Oberon SSK’s were the last big British export successes, although eg Type 42 ended up with Argentina (oops). Since then the RN has gone too high end and tried to be good Europeans (like that was ever going to work), but one could argue that a lack of high-end threat has meant that export customers have been content with cheaper alternatives. Now that there’s a real threat in the Pacific, other countries are more interested in the RN’s gold-plated approach…

          • DaSaint

            Yes, the Oberon class ASK. Good catch! I believe that in addition to the UK, Canada, Australia, and Chile used them. They were good subs for their time.

          • El_Sid

            Brazil too. There’s some great stories out there of what the Aussie Oberons got up to, although most of the British history is still classified – they were much better special forces platforms than SSNs. They’ve had an unusually high preservation rate, particularly the Aussie ones, whereas the UK only has one left – Ocelot at Chatham.

    • El_Sid

      These things are all about tradeoffs – the Venator has been kicking around for over a decade in one form or other so BMT have had plenty of time to think about what compromises need to be made. I’d imagine they’re far more worried about maximising the space aft for offboard systems than they are about the main gun.

    • Rudeboy1

      Is the firing arc of the Venator that big of an issue? From the details I’ve seen of the Venator 110 it has at least a 200 degree firing arc? Probably even a little more. The BMT version they’re proposing for FFG(X) hasn’t been seen yet. The CEO of BMT announced at DSEI that it would be a Venator 120. It will have a 10 meter plug somewhere, might even be a lengthened bow section. Can’t imagine it needs a bigger mission bay or heli deck.

      • DaSaint

        Good points. Firing arcs are not so important until you don’t have them. Looking forward to the USN FFGX submission.

  • RobM1981

    All of this is fine, but… can it operate in the Littorals?

    😉

    • Ctrot

      LOL. Be nice now!

    • Secundius

      I would suspect so!/? Draft of the Type 31 is 14-feet, 1.3-inches…

    • UKExpat

      The author stated that Lockhart told USNI News. “They’ll be getting feedback from the Littoral Combat Ship program and taking all that into consideration.” They actually already had more than enough feedback about the LCS ships to know that the RN would never authorize the building of any ships as ridiculous as the LCS Classes, generally all RN policy has always been built ships to “Blue Water” standards.

      It has to be remembered that the RN built a research vessel called “RV Triton” (See Wikipedia) in 1998 it was a joint venture with the USN, it was basically a 2,250 ton trimaran, similar in style to the later USN Independence class and was used to test the feasibility of trimarans as warships, the data collected was shared equally with their partner the USN. As a result of the data procured the RN immediately stopped all further work on such designs, what the USN did was to create a very dark page in the USN’s history of procurement.

      • Secundius

        Unfortunately, the US Hse.of Rep. are the “Exchequer of the Purse” in the US Government, NOT the US Navy or the President…

      • Secundius

        Also “RV Triton” concept was Sold to Australia in December 2006. “Independence” class was Funded in 2004…

  • Robert Donnelly

    The type 31E type Frigate speed seems inadequate for operations either in transit or escort operations. In combat, the max speed (Unstated) should be carefully reviewed. The impact on range at a higher transit speed should be analyzed.

    • Secundius

      Depends on which version?/! Their are Three Versions of the Small Hull Plan, differences being in Armament Fitted. Sub-Classes are “Cutlass” class, “Avenger” class and “Ventor 110” class. Projected speed so far is >25kts, witha range of 7,000nmi. @ 15kts. Crew size is comparable to the Freedom class of 85, but with a maximum accommodation of 106 plus Air Crew of 16…

      • Ron5

        what?????

        • Secundius

          That’s according to “Think Defense”, a UK version of USNI News. And by all indications, there are More “Sail Plans” of the Type 31 forthcoming…

          • Ron5

            You are spouting rubbish, none of which came from “Think Defence”

          • El_Sid

            Think Defence is not a UK version of USNI, he’s just a civilian blogger. But at least he understands how the competition works – Type 31e is just an RN requirement which has 5 designs from 4 different companies in competition.

            There’s no “Small Hull Plan”, and the different company designs are far more different than just varying in armament – in fact the armament is likely to be pretty similar, certainly among the non-BAE designs.

          • Secundius

            WHERE Did I say “SMALL Hull Plan”?/! I said “SAIL Hull Plan”!/? Put your Glasses On, or go to “Settings” and OPT for a Higher Resolution…

          • El_Sid

            Right up there, about 5 posts ago :

            “Their are Three Versions of the Small Hull Plan, differences being in Armament Fitted.”

          • Secundius

            Actually “Think Defense APLC” (A Professional Law Corporation) is funded by LSC (Legal Services Corporation) which was FOUNDED by the US Congress in 1974. And is Administered by Mani Dabim, Attorney At Law as a SIC (Social Information Center) or “Gripe Tank”. Where People and Professionals SHARE Information and Ideas on Defense Relative Subjects. Virtually the SAME as “USNI News”…

          • El_Sid

            That’s as may be, but I can assure you no ” UK version of USNI News” would spell defence with an “s”. And I doubt a US lawyer would have covered specifics of RN designs in the same depth as thinkdefence co uk – they’re completely separate.

          • Secundius

            Think Defense talks a lot about “Mexeflotes”!/? Something that USNI News DOESN’T?/! Probably TOO “British”…

    • Rudeboy1

      The ships as shown here wouldn’t necessarily be proposed to the USN.

      At DSEI the BMT CEO basically said the Venator 110 wouldn’t be offered to the USN. It would be the Venator 120. Essentially it would get a 10 metre plug. The propulsion can also be swapped out for more GT’s if high end speed is required. It’s also worth noting that RN speed requirements are always end of life, fouled hull and all growth margin used up requirements. The QE for example is 25 knots. On the 6th day of her trials she was spotted at 29.6 knots on AIS, and AIS has been switched off for some periods…

  • Ron5

    “Naval Sea Systems Command has issued outline requirements for a
    multi-mission frigate with an unrefueled range of between 4,500 nautical
    miles and 6,500 nautical miles at 16 knots, capable of escorting
    convoys between the United States and Europe”

    This is sooooo not true.

    Among other things, the US is looking for a frigate to operate with carrier task groups in a way that the frigate enhances the fleet’s capability. Babcocks Arrowhead is too slow to keep up with a USN TF and doesn’t have the surviveability, sensors or weapon fit to be anything other than another ship that needs to be protected. It’s notably inferior to the LCS which has proven to be inadaquate.

    • Secundius

      B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) designers of the Type 31 are claiming 7,000nmi at 15kts. With a Maximum Speed >25kts…

      • Ron5

        Wrong on both.

        • Secundius

          Does the “5” mean that your 5-years old?/! Or ONLY made it through the 5th Grade…

          • Ron5

            You’re still wrong on both.

          • Secundius

            Those on this Website have ALREADY determined what YOU ARE!/? They don’t need me to Enlighten Them on the Subject…

      • El_Sid

        B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) designers of the Type 31

        As so often Secundius, you make apparently definitive statements when you clearly have no understanding of what’s going on. There’s three errors just in 9 words.

        It’s the Type 31e, not the Type 31.

        There are no “designers of the Type 31″e yet – at the moment it’s just the name of an RN competition.

        And Babcock & Wilcox have nothing to do with it. Babcock International plc has always been a separate company – and in fact is a significant company in its own right – although it was originally set up by B&W in the 19th century. So far Babcock International have been one of four companies to propose a design to meet the RN requirement, noone has won the competition yet.

        • Secundius

          Look HARDER Next Time?/! B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) is a Subsidiary of Babcock International Group Plc. And as I recall, the “e” designation means of Lightweight Construction (Aluminum instead of Steel)…

          • El_Sid

            B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) is a Subsidiary of Babcock International Group Plc.

            No – they’re separate companies, one listed on the NY stock exchange, the other listed in London.

            And the “e” stands for “export”, it’s nothing to do with materials.

          • Secundius

            Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. “Offically” changed their Name to Babcock International Group Plc. in 1979…

          • Ryan Cornell

            Secundius – Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. (UK) was a separate company from Babcock & Wilcox (US). Ltd. was created by the US company as a licensee but was autonomous. Neither entity was a subsidiary of the other at any point.

          • Secundius

            Probably so, but You’re Explanation STILL doesn’t explain Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. USA/UK becoming Babcock International Group Plc in 1979…

          • El_Sid

            That’s because the USA company didn’t become Babcock International…

          • UKExpat

            Gentlemen please! You both seem to have forgotten that the Type 31E Frigate has NOT been designed yet. The current situation is that at least four separate companies have responded to the UK Government’s request for design / proposals / costs etc. for it’s requirement for a new General Purpose Frigate. The proposed designs vary enormously, with BAE and Babcock’s being the current joint favourites. Until such time as the UK government has examined, negotiated and ordered (expected by the first quarter of 2019) the ship’s design remains completely open.

          • El_Sid

            “Both”? I refer you to my opening comment – “There are no “designers of the Type 31″e yet – at the moment it’s just the name of an RN competition.

            Actually as Parliament goes to recess, the MoD has snuck out an announcement that (not entirely surprisingly) the competition has failed (on the grounds that £250m doesn’t buy as much pixie dust and unicorn tears as hoped, but they can’t say that).

            So no doubt there will be another competition that will try to split the same budget between fewer hulls, and end up with a single billion-pound ship.

          • El_Sid

            In common language, “B&W” or “Babcock & Wilcox” these days
            refers to the US company Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc.

            Which is nothing to do with Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. When you talk of “B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) designers of the Type 31” you are clearly not talking about a company from 1979.

          • Secundius

            Why don’t you Actually Try Looking It Up, instead Regurgitating the SAME Rhetorical Answer Over and Over again…

          • El_Sid

            I suspect I know a little more than you do about this, which is why I’m trying to clarify. When you said “B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) designers of the Type 31” were you talking about :

            Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc.
            or
            Babcock & Wilcox Ltd.

            Simple question.

          • Secundius

            No you DIDN’T!/? My “Pestering” YOU of the Question FORCED you to Look Up the Answers YOU “Thought” you Knew, But Didn’t. You were No More “CLEAR” of the Answers than I was…

          • El_Sid

            No – I didn’t need to look up whether “B&W (Babcock & Wilcox)” were “designers of the Type 31” – because they weren’t. Same as I didn’t need to look up whether someone calling themselves “Think DefenSe” was British. You still haven’t answered my simple question, in this context were you talking about

            Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc.
            or
            Babcock & Wilcox Ltd.?

          • Secundius

            Funny how you’re LAST “Iteration” of the “Babcock” Question DIDN’T get Posted in you’re FIRST Comment?/! If it did, there would be no need for any Follow-Up Comments…

          • Craig Mowbray

            The ‘e’ stands for ‘export’. Inline with the 2017 UK ‘Naval Shipbuilding Strategy, this class of vessel, irrespective of the chosen design/construction, they will have desirability for use by foreign navies as one the primary drivers. This is why the target cost of £250m per vessel based on a 5 vessel batch is critical. Construction will be as per all recent UK naval vessels, the ships being constructed in modules across various yards and then final assembly and fitting out a another. This is in part to ensure multiple yards have a share of work load and therefore retain the necessary skills base and also to provide a competitive lead time. All the entrants so far have shown innovative approaches but realistically though likely to be excellent vessels may be under specced for US needs or policy.

          • Secundius

            Oh thank you! I recall “El Cid” pointing out the SAME issue some 6-months ago. But I suspect you DIDN’T bother reading his comment…

          • Craig Mowbray

            Your suspicions are correct, as I stumbled on this site by accident only a few hours ago and responded to this particular stream at that time.

            One raises the question though, that if ‘El Cid’ did in fact highlight your fundamental error in misunderstanding the meaning of the letter ‘e’ six months ago, why are you still doing it?

            But anyway, thank you, as through your snide and quite unwarranted response, I am now enlightened as to prevailing attitude on this site, the general level of debate and your innate arrogance.

    • Duane

      The LCS is not designed for nor tasked to be a carrier strike force escort, in the sense of providing area air defense or transoceanic ASW defense. A ship cannot be “inadequate” for a role that it was never intended to fill. That’s like saying a Ford class CVN is “inadequate as a submarine”.

      The LCS ASW variant can provide offshore ASW support to carrier strike forces on an ad hoc basis as needed, and the Navy discusses that capability for the ship when equipped with the ASW module. But the LCS would not likely provide convoy support in transoceanic transit … rather, it will serve more of a destination ASW capability in its normal operational area, such as the western Pacific/ECS/SCS theater, or in the Persian Gulf region.

      • El Kabong

        “The LCS ASW variant can provide offshore ASW support to carrier strike forces on an ad hoc basis as needed…”?

        Right…

        JUST what a CSG needs.

        “Ad hoc” ASW support.

        • Duane

          You apparently don’t understand the meaning of “ad hoc”.

          • El Kabong

            You clearly don’t.

            So a CSG is under submarine attack and in your mind, “ad hoc” ASW coverage will save the day?

            Wow…

          • BlueSky47

            El Kabong, don’t be sooo ‘mean’ you might hurt someone’s ‘feelings.’ Don’t you know that LCS is that greatest sub hunter ever-bar none. In fact it has tracked, prosecuted, and sunk, ah, well….. In fact it as participated in ah well…. well… I know it’s done something somewhere, I think….

          • El Kabong

            I live by the motto, “I’ll be nicer, when you’re smarter.”. 😉

            I agree!
            The LCS is SO awesome, that they’re holding it back… *cough*

          • BlueSky47

            In the real Navy warfare world “ad-hoc” means you’re dead and sunk. There are no ‘time-outs’ when the shooting starts Duane-y, you either sink the bad guys first or if you’re on a Battle LCS, you get sunk first.

        • D. Jones

          The Littoral Combat Sub can indeed provide effective ASW operations by two methods: 1) hit the enemy sub while diving 2) destabilize enemy subs’ buoyancy by releasing air bubbles underneath enemy subs as the LCS passes test depth. This will require the bow-plane module and EAB gear for the conn.

          • Duane

            You need to educate yourself. LCS feature the latest generation variable depth sonar system designed to function well in both shallow water (which the ASW systems on our DDGs don’t handle well) and deep. Along with deployment of sonobuoys, periscope detection systems, extensive torpedo countermeasures, and of course the MH-60R (which the older ABs cannot deploy – just land) and the MQ-8B and C drone choppers, and the very same lightweight torpedoes (Mk 46 for deep water and Mk 54 for shallow water) that the DDGs use against submarines.

          • BlueSky47

            So when the “Littoral Battle Frigate” bumps into a sub (that’ll be the only time it’ll ‘see’ one) and your bird is down, or it can’t fly because it’s over sea state 1, what is the Littoral Battle Frigate going to do-throw pototoes at the sub? The would awaits your awe-inspiring answer.

          • El Kabong

            LOL!

            “1) hit the enemy sub while diving”?

            Right. Nuclear submarines have a habit of surfacing during combat.

            “2) destabilize enemy subs’ buoyancy by releasing air bubbles underneath enemy subs as the LCS passes test depth.”?

            What the….???
            What EXACTLY is that fictional nonsense?
            You do realize subs have TORPEDOES, right?

            Are you drunk?

          • BlueSky47

            “Ramming speed” “bom bom bom bom bombombombom”

      • BlueSky47

        But what about the LCS’s very powerful and effective: ASuW module? ah wait, it’s only a couple of 30mm machine guns, or how about it’s amazing ASW module, or wait, that’s behind schedule, doesn’t work, too expensive, ineffective, no offensive weapons to attack subs. Besides, one cannot find and track subs with an extreemly noisy water jet plant, the subs will hear that from a thousand miles away so in reality the LCS is nothing but target practice for enemy subs. Or how about it’s it’s, well, it’s anti mine warfare module, well the LCS can do 50 knots, that’s great for finding mines, right? Dang, we’re quickly running out of things the LCS ‘can’ actually do. Perhaps some LCS expert here can chim in and tell us exactly what the LCS can do? The world wonders.

        • Duane

          Where have you been the last four years? Sleeping, apparently, or trolling other commenters as you do here with your juvenile taunts.

          The SuW capability consists of the world’s finest and most capable medium range anti-boat and drone gun, the Mk 110 57mm which is vastly more capable of taking out small boat swarms and drone swarms with its high rate of fire (220 rpm) gun with “one shot/one kill” precision guided multi-target mode shells, good out to 9,000 yards. None of our other surface warships have that capability. It can literally take out a 20 or 40 boat swarm in under a minute. One shot, one kill.

          Supplementing the Mk 110 is the 16-cell vertical launch Hellfire system, also good for small boat swarms as well as drones, choppers, and low flying aircraft.

          For point air defense against cruise missiles, the world’s finest CIWS, the SeaRam, same system used on our new Ford and the new Flight III Arleigh Burkes.

          It also includes the two Mk 46 30mm mounts for close in work – within 3,500 yards.

          And, now with “distributed lethality” being deployed, the Navy has begun equipping all LCS with angled cannister deck launchers capable today of firing both Harpoons and the much longer range Kongsberg-Raytheon Naval Strike Missile, and has already ground tested a modified angled cannister deck launcher that will fire not only the Harpoon and NSM, but also LRASM. These are exactly the same anti ship missiles, or better, that our much larger DDGs and CGs use.

          • John Locke

            You are obviously not very knowledgeable about drones or swarm tactics. I’m not trolling you but it’s just obvious your information is limited.

          • Duane

            State your case. You’re just making a totally unsupported assertion.

            My case is the LCS itself. Designed from the keel up to be the world’s most capable warship against specifically small boat swarms and drone swarms in the littorals (which is where you find small boat swarms and drone swarms – not out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean). These weapons systems have already been test fired and demonstrated on swarming small boats.

            Small boats have already taken out a US DDG, the Cole, and it wasn’t even a swarm, just one boat. A small swarm of small boats took out a Saudi frigate within the last year. We know that small boat swarms are the favored tactics and weapons of the Iranians who constantly threaten our ships in the Persian Gulf, where a very large proportion of the world’s oil supply flows through daily, and our DDGs now patrol, but without the benefit of the LCS capabilities.

            I stated my case quite clearly in terms of specific purpose built weapons designed and deployed on the LCS in its SuW capability.

            Now you state your case why these weapons won’t work. C’mon, put up or shut up, as they say.

          • BlueSky47

            Last time I checked, the Chinese Navy consists of aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, frigates, and lots and lots of missile boats. Funny I don’t see ‘swarm’ boats and ‘swarm’ drone as being a part of their Navy or strategy. How you propose that the world’s greatest LCS-bare none, deal with ANY Chinese threat? Is the LCS going to stop them with it’s little swarm boat gun or it’s little short range Hellfire missiles? The LCS will be nothing but target practice for the Chinese Navy and they’ll enjoy sinking every LCS very quickly.

          • Duane

            Actually, most of Chinas submarines are diesel coastal subs … ditto with Iran, ditto with Korea … precisely the kinds of subs the LSC ASW package is designed to defeat.

            Most of China’s total fleet is also coastal in nature – they barely have any kind of blue water hulls at all. A single aircraft carrier is all they have. The LCS is equipped now with OTH missiles to defeat precisely the vast bulk of Chinese ships.

          • BlueSky47

            Coastal navy? come on now Duane-y, nobody can be that uninformed. Besides how in the heck is a LCS even going to get close to a sub when the sub can ‘hear’ it’s extreemly noisy propulsion plant from hundreds of miles away. Secondly, just in case the LCS bumps into a very quiet AIP sub, what do you suppose they do-make ‘mean faces’ at it? News flash, the LCS has no weapons, no torpedoes, no ASROC, and NO Duane-y you can’t assume your helo will be able to fly 7x24x365 in all sea states. Giving the bad submarines ‘mean faces’ I hear is an effective way to sink them, at least the “Mean Face Module” is working well, you can be thankful for that real capability.

          • ElmCityAle

            It’s doesn’t seem difficult to add the standard Mark 32 torpedo launcher unit to either LCS variant; hard to understand why they weren’t included from the beginning (at least with the “ASW package”.

          • BlueSky47

            Pretty pathetic eh ElmCity, here the world’s foremost “small rubber boat killer” is now claiming to be the world’s foremost ASW platform without any organic capabilities, sensors, weapons, etc. What’s even more of a joke is how damn noisy the LCS is, those huge water jets make enough noise and wake turbulance to alert any sub within 500 miles. How in the Duane-y world can any one claim the LCS is a sub hunter?

          • Rhino601

            yawn

          • ElmCityAle

            Do you have a link with the information on those new launchers? Given how different the “footprint” of the three missiles listed, it’s hard to imagine a single design accommodating them.

          • Duane

            Look up the USS Coronado anywhere on the web … the official Navy photos show it bow on with a 4-cell angled cannister deck launcher clearly visible. Same launcher used on the Arleigh Burkes typically in 8 cell configuration … for LCS the typical configuration will be two four-cell launchers, one mounted forward and one aft. This launcher fires both the Harpoon and the NSM, medium-weight ASCMs.

            About six weeks ago the Navy and LM test fired (successfully) a modified angled canister deck launcher sized up a bit to handle LRASM (they fired an LRASM from it) at White Sands test range. LRASM weighs about 2,100 pounds vs. 1,400 pounds for the Harpoon and 900 pounds for the NSM. The Navy announced that the next phase in testing would be conducted shipboard next spring. Again, just do a google search on “Navy tests LRASM deck launcher at White Sands”.

            The Navy also released a request for proposals back in June for over the horizon anti-ship cruise missiles for the LCS. Again, google it. Boeing announced it would not submit its Harpoon, since the existing in service Harpoon Block 2 won’t meet the RFP requirements, and its Block 2-ER version is still in development. Likewise, LM announced it would not submit LRASM for this buy, because again, LRASM like the Harpoon Block 2-ER is not yet in service. The likely winner of the competition by default will be the Kongsberg-Raytheon Naval Strike Missile, or “NSM”. It is highly likely that the Navy will issue another RFP sometime between 2018 and 2019 that will allow Boeing and LM to offer their new missiles to compete with NSM.

          • Rhino601

            Yawn

  • John B. Morgen

    The Trump Administration will not allow the Navy to purchase the light frigate; especially, when American jobs are not being involved. Furthermore, the LCS lobby will fight tooth and claw to blocked such a purchase in Congress.

    • Secundius

      In 1 May 2017, the “Jones” Act of 1920 was amended to Allow Foreign “Designed” Naval Ship Plans to be Purchased and Built in the United States. B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) the designer of the Type 31 Frigate have a US Headquarters in Charlotte, NC. Though B&W was actually founded in Providence, RI. in 1867 and established a UK site in 1891 in Barleyfield Hinckley, Leicestershire, UK…

      • Rob C.

        I hope your right about being able to over come the political roadblock a non-American built design faces. It doesn’t matter if it was founded in the US, or B&W has office here. It’s where it’s physically built. Even if it does get approval (without issue) by the Trump Administration, he also has to over come the partisan congress to approve it.

        If i were a betting man, i would suspect that a deal would need to be made for later ships of the Class if approved would need be produced in a United States Shipyard after the initial starter ships were delivered in the UK.

        • Secundius

          ANY “Supermajority Vote” by the US Congress will NULLIFY Donald Trump’s Veto Power!/? Even a Presidential Executive Order CAN’T override a Congressional Supermajority Vote!/? At which time Donald Trump BECOME’s a “Bobble Head” President with Nothing to do…

          • Donald Carey

            So you hate Trump – what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

          • Secundius

            Never CLAIMED to be a Trump Supporter!/? And the Subject In Hand being WHAT “Exactly”!/? Overriding Donald Trump’s Veto Power? Or something else…

          • Donald Carey

            The subject at hand is the new frigate design being purchased or license built in the U.S., not insulting the POTUS..

          • Secundius

            Frigate Replacement Design Competition ISN’T until 2019 or 2020. Because Paul Ryan wanted to Push Back the Sequester for another Couple of Years. It was suppose to end in Mid June 2017, with the Competition being in 2018. Senator John McCain has been “Trying In Vain” to NULLIFY the “Jones” (aka Merchant Marine) Act of 1920, since at least 1995. So in 1 May 2017, the “Jones” Act was amended, and a Compromise was reached to Loosen the Restrictions on Foreign Naval Design Purchases, NOT Actual Direct Foreign Naval Shipyard Purchases. Before the Compromise, the Best that could be offered were “Bareboat” Purchases, Hulls and Superstructures ONLY with Fitting Outs done within Domestic Shipyards. This NEW way eliminates the need to use Lift-Ship or Tugs to Tow the “Bareboats” to U.S. Territorial Waters.

            Donald Trump “BRINGS ON” His own Insults, by being a TOTALLY Incompetent Head of State…

        • Wally Pa Zing

          The Type 31 is an offering of Babcock International Group and not Babcock & Wilcox, they are entirely unconnected organisations.

          • Secundius

            Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. charged their Name to Babcock International Group Plc. in 1979…

      • John B. Morgen

        How interesting…..Congress should have done this a lot sooner during the Bush the Younger Administration.

        • Secundius

          Senator John McCain has been trying in Vain since at least 1995 to “Nullify” the “Jones” Act. Unfortunately HE’S getting “Stiff Opposition” from Senators from States that have Shipbuilding Companies Residing within them…

    • John Locke

      Funny, LCS has a lot of foreign components.

      • John B. Morgen

        Such as?

        • Secundius

          Bofors make the 57mm gun (BAe [Kentucky] built], MTU make the Diesel on the “Indy” (also though BAe/Paxton Diesels), Wartsila (the Waterjets) for the “Indy”. And Isotta Fraschini the Diesels for the “Freedom” and Rolls-Royce/BAe for the Gas Turbine and Waterjets for the “Freedom”. And even the Ships themselves, with the Exception of “Freedom” which is built by Fincantieri Bay Shipbuilding of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin founded in 1942 by the Palmer Johnson Luxury Yacht Company, also in Sturgeon Bay…

          • John B. Morgen

            I remembered decades ago that the NATO members were trying to get the United States military to purchase European products, so have an equal balance the trade exchanges between the alliance members.

    • Rudeboy1

      It will be built in the US.

      It’s just the design…

  • Russ Neal

    I’ve always thought it made sense for us to have allies manufacture some platforms like frigates, diesel subs, patrol craft while we manufacture destroyers cruisers and carriers and sell them to each other on a more or less equal basis. Economies of scale and value of specialization.

    • Secundius

      We did “More or Less” in WWII with H.R. 1776: The Lend Lease Act of 11 March 1941. The Act was good for 99-years of date of Implementation. Could always be Reactivated, ONLY if the US Congress is WILLING…

  • Duane

    The whole notion of ditching the Navy’s normal mode of first defining the requirements for a new ship class, then inviting prospective builders to submit designs, then moving on to construction, in favor of selecting a so-called “off the shelf” design for a new ship class is silly and wasteful. By far, the cheapest and quickest part of developing a new ship class is the design task. If you try to avoid the design task, then in effect you are ditching your own service’s requirements. You’ll end up being forced to accept whatever compromises another nation’s navy brass made with their design, supposedly to save time and money, sorry, it won’t happen. The Navy brass are already starting to get major push back on their completely unrealistic goal of having the new FFG(X) in operation by 2024. Sorry again, it won’t happen.

    By the way, a lot of Brit navy types are already very unhappy with the direction the UK’s Type 31 program is going – apparently it is being designed to deploy missiles and launchers that don’t even exist yet, meaning that even if they get one or a few hulls built in the next five years, it will be essentially defenseless until the next generation of new missiles, not due for operation until the early 2030s,arrive in service. A lot of the critics are saying, “at least make it ready to fire Harpoons”, or perhaps the existing Kongsberg NSMs, so that it can shoot something when it goes into the water. SMH.

    There are no shortcuts to designing, developing, building, testing, and deploying a new ship class. If you go with so-called “off the shelf” it is guaranteed to not fit your own navy’s requirements … and the sacrifice of requirements will ultimately result in the seemingly “quick and dirty” alternative ending up just being dirty, but not quick, or cheap.

    This applies both to the existing LCS designs, as well as any other nation’s frigate designs. Start with a clean sheet of your own requirements, and go from there. There are good arguments over what those requirements should be, fine, hash them out.

    • BlueSky47

      So Duane-y, what happened to the LCS then? It started out as a brilliant concept but morphed, by design, into a very large, commercial grade, overengineered, overly complex, thin skinned, defenseless, and offenseless, unreliable, extreemly expensive, do-nothing admiral’s fast barge?

      • Duane

        None of the above.

        By the way moderators – you were going to strictly enforce the commenting rules, so this commenter’s attempted juvenile taunts are certainly in violation of your commenting guidelines.

        • BlueSky47

          You didn’t answer the question. Calling on moderators is not an answer to debating the enormous and un-explanable shortcomings of the LCS

    • El Kabong

      Swap “Type 31’s” for “LCS”.

      • Duane

        You couldn’t be more wrong. The LCS was a US Navy program with well defined program requirements, with two competing designs selected, designed, built, tested, and now deployed very successfully – more successfully than the “proven” DDGs have been this year, at least. And while forward deployed and operating in exactly the same waters of the Western Pacific and Malacca Strait/Singapore, yet managed to not collide with other ships.

        A FFG(X) will not need as much design and development time as the LCS, because the Navy has already stipulated that the learning achieved with the LCS will be put to good use on the FFG(X). The frigate will also be a more conventional SSC than the LCS, so it will also benefit from design lessons learned on other US warships in the last 20 years.

        • Robert Donnelly

          It is too bad that you used the occasions when U.S. sailors died maintaining a crucial presence In the Western Pacific, to respond to a comment that insulted the LCS.
          I disagree with with your comments that the LCS had well defined Program requirements. I was intimately involved with the development of the Aegis Destroyer class requirements. My role was in the development of the integrated combat system requirements. I KNOW what is required to develop a balanced set of requirements for the entire system. It is apparent that the emphasis for the LCS put the priority on the Hull design, disregarding the needs for a Combat System which SHOULD enable the ship to be labeled “Warship”. The experience gained in the Aegis ships was apparently trashed in the rush to experiment with different hulls, I hope the transition to “FFX” unearth the system engineering techniques utilized during the Aegis Destroyer specifications. The FFX combat system requirements must be system engineered, in order to be an effective warship, even if limited in certain areas

          • Duane

            You’re wrong. The LCS had and has a well-defined combat system for the threats it is designed and tasked with fulfilling. It was never tasked with the role of being an air defense ship, or tasked initially with going head to head against large surface warships. When the LCS was designed there was no such thing as a near peer naval force, because the Soviet fleet, what was left of it by 2002, was rusting pierside, and the Chinese fleet as we know it now did not exist. The US Navy was literally unchallenged.

            The LCS was originally tasked with taking out small vessels, coastal submarines, and drone, as well as mine clearing – threats for which it is the most capable warship on the planet, much more capable than our much larger DDGs or existing minesweepers.

            Then the last 15 years happened.

            The Navy began to realize by the mid-2010s that we now have near peer challengers on the seas. So “distributed lethality” was born, and for the last several years the Navy has begun equipping LCS with OTH missiles to provide a distributed threat to near peer surface targets. This also coincides with development of NIFCCA – networking of all our assets which is key to distributed lethality – and the emergence of the F-35 as the ultimate air-based forward sensor and battle data management system, now linked with all our vessels both large and small.

            21st century naval warfare is nothing like 20th century warfare … just as 20th century naval warfare was nothing at all like 19th century naval warfare.

          • John Locke

            You might want to read the ROC & POE’s for LCS and to say that the LCS is much more capable than DDG 51 class is just, well,………. (facepalm)

          • Duane

            No DDG has the anti small boat swarm and drone swarm weapons of the LCS. The DDGs use larger (5-in), much slower firing (16-20 rpm vs. 220 rpm), and lacks precision guided projectiles. Instead of “one shot/one kill” it’s “quite a few shots and quite likely no kill” such that a large swarm of small boats can easily overwhelm a DDG.

            The DDG also completely lack the Hellfire vertical launchers (the LCS is the only warship with them in the world) … and except on the new Flight IIIs that are still years away, no SeaRam CIWS, which is far more capable against supersonic ASCMs than the Phalanx on the DDGs.

            And the DDGs only fire short range Harpoons today, while the LCS is already certified for the NSM that has twice the range of Harpoon, and testing is now underway for LRASM on LCS, which at 350 nm has 6-7 times the range of the old Harpoons that our DDGs now carry.

          • Secundius

            I doubt that the Arleigh Burke could SAFELY Navigate UP a “Brown Water” River at 30+ knots…

          • Robert Donnelly

            Let’s see, the last century in ww2 had diesel subs, small boats, lots of mines, and kamikazee aircraft(drones). It appears to be very similar to the threat that LCS was intended to address. PT boats in ww2 did a pretty good job in offense and defense. In Vietnam, the fast Riverine patrol boats WERE the Brown Water Navy, (40 knots +), much cheaper to field and operate. The current century has many carryover threats from the 20th century! To ignore history is to repeat it.

            Regarding LCS:
            Please point out unclass data that indicates that a demonstrated mine clearance capability exists.
            Please point out unclassified data that demonstrates ASW capability that exists against “coastal subs” is the ” best in the world”.
            Please point out data that proves the LCS will survive air attacks while concentrating its resources on other missions.
            “Distributed Lethality” was not born, but just renamed to address the need to integrate all resources to be able to conduct operations using all sources and platforms.
            I sincerely hope the LCS (or FFX) ships will be a positive, and effective contribution to our Naval Capbilities. It is not now obvious that the current course of actions will allow this to happen.

          • Duane

            The clear majority (55%) of all naval shipping destroyed by our Navy in WW II were destroyed by a vessel type that did not exist in our Navy prior to 1900 – the fleet submarine, which only accounted for 2% of our fleet but sank more than the other 98% of the fleet combined. The US Navy and Congress invested by far the largest amount in a late 19th century warship type – the “dreadnaught” style armored, big gunned battleship – that was defeated the first day of World War Two. The other ship type that accounted for most of our naval strength in World War Two was also another ship that did not exist at all in the 19th century – the aircraft carrier.

            And yes the LCS will survive air attacks as well as any other warship on the planet. It is equipped with the world’s most advanced and capable point air defense system – SeaRam. The very same system we now put on the Ford carriers, and will be installed on the Flight III Arleigh Burkes, and our amphibs. It defeats ASCMs, both subsonic and supersonic. Additionally, the Mk 110 57mm gun with its “one shot/one kill” precision guided munitions and the Hellfires and the Mk 46 30mm gun provide a great, three layered air defense system against drones and low flying aircraft.

          • DaSaint

            ‘The LCS had and has a well-defined combat system for the threats it is designed and tasked with fulfilling’.

            I completely disagree, Duane. If it did, it wouldn’t have ended up with 2 completely disparate combat systems, and sensor suites, a situation which is now being corrected so that the COMBATSS-21 system will be the common system in both hull forms.

            The Navy is at least mandating that COMBATSS-21 will be the combat system for the FFGX.

        • El Kabong

          “USNI Moderator – where are you? You’re tolerating this kind of commentary in strict defiance of the commenting rules?”

    • Rudeboy1

      “By the way, a lot of Brit navy types are already very unhappy with the direction the UK’s Type 31 program is going – apparently it is being designed to deploy missiles and launchers that don’t even exist yet, meaning that even if they get one or a few hulls built in the next five years, it will be essentially defenseless until the next generation of new missiles, not due for operation until the early 2030s,arrive in service. A lot of the critics are saying, “at least make it ready to fire Harpoons”, or perhaps the existing Kongsberg NSMs, so that it can shoot something when it goes into the water. SMH.”

      I’m not sure where you’re getting that from but it’s a little inaccurate. Type 31e will mount Sea Ceptor, which has just been tested on Type 23. That’s for the anti-air role. The launchers etc will be standard across T26 and T31 and are already on ships. If you’re referring to AShM’s then there is a degree of truth, but not much. Harpoon has been reprieved in UK service until 2020. But after that there will be no heavyweight AShM on RN ships until a new one is procured. Sea Venom will be available via the onboard Wildcat, but the RN are in a bind over AShM at present. It won’t just affect T31 but T26 and T45 if not resolved. Simply put there isn’t anything that ticks the box for them..here are their options..

      Harpoon II – Easy to integrate, but not a huge amount of faith in it. Not a great land attack missile or possessing of applicability to a heavy ROE environment. At best will get a small buy until a proper capability is purchased

      XASM – 3 – Great missile, lots of co-operation between Japan and the UK at present. But will be eye-wateringly expensive and limited/negligible land attack. A real outsider if any procurement ever goes ahead.

      Exocet – Not a hope.

      RBS-15 – Same again

      LRASM – RN very interested, but not ready until 2025 at earliest and will need Mk.41 which adds to cost for T31, but would be fine for T26 (and T45 if they ever install them). Decent warhead and land attack capability.

      MBDA Perseus – Just a concept at the moment, not ready until 2030 at earliest (this is what your informers are talking about). Might never get built. Definitely the most potent of the options, likely to hugely expensive, probably need Mk.41.

      NSM/JSM – 2nd favourite for a limited buy as can be canister launched. Would probably be nailed on if JSM was surface launched as they could be bought to fill the 2020-30 gap (until Perseus) and then re-purposed for air launch from P-8, F-35 or Typhoon or retained for T31. JSM also has decent land attack, NSM not so much.

      The odds are that none will be procured until LRASM or Perseus arrive with Sea Venom providing the AShM capability.

      • Duane

        Yes, I was referring to ASCMs. The Brits who are complaining are complaining that they aren’t planning to deploy Harpoons on the Type 31s, and are waiting until the early 2030s for ASCM capabilility. The Brit critics are specifically saying the RN should deploy Harpoons as at least an interim ASCM.

        Whether the critics are right or wrong, but it is a mistake to think that the Type 31s are some sort of great design for the US Navy to buy off the shelf.

        Let the USN define our own requirements, and let the defense contractors put up their designs that will best meet those requirements. Selecting a design and then settling for something less than or different from our own requirements is dumb. We’re talking about buying ships that are going to be in the fleet another 40-50 years. Doing it right is far better than trying to meet some artificial and meaningless deadline that someone promised someone else.

  • Ed L

    Guess the author of this article forgot to mention Huntington NSC Frigate Variant.

  • Rob C.

    I hope the US Navy will least buy 4-set to see if this works for
    them. They used to do it in the 1950s-1960s see what design fits their
    needs. The current LSC/FFG program seems like compromise after
    compromise, when you do that too many times and change hands too many
    time…things get mucks up if no one paying attention.

    The Type
    31E may not be everything US need, but it’s more Warship than both LCS
    designs in sense it properly able carry out the traditional mission
    profiles that Navy now says it wants verses coastal ship. If the Freedom
    or Independence had large cousins, perhaps they could build to replace
    them, then it be more feasible. The FFGX proposal had said the ships
    don’t need to be as fast as the current LCS designs.

    I felt for a
    long time that it was kind stubborn or stupid for the Navy or other
    branches to shove some of the most expensive things possible what i saw
    was them hoping get something in the middle after proposals would get
    cuts down. A Corvette is what a coastal warship (traditionally) is
    suppose to be doing. LCS is a Corvette in anything but name. Frigate
    above it, being able bring brushing of more firepower, while not able
    get closer to the shore. OPV taken over most of the coastal duties in
    the smaller navies.

    • Secundius

      BOTH the “Freedom/Independence” classes were Flight “0” designs. The Flight “I’s” were already Bought and Paid Before, even before Obama left office. The could ALSO Build and Commission the “Ambassador III” class Missile Patrol Boats, as a Replacement for the “Cyclone” class. ONLY “IF” the US Congress would Open Their Collective Eye’s too See…

      • Donald Carey

        To see, not too see. (Why am I not surprised?)

        • Secundius

          Unfortunately OBAMA Never Had an Appropriations Budget to Fund and Build the Flight I LCS classes. Budget was the SAME Appropriations Budget that George W. Bush submitted in January 2009, before leaving office…

  • Curtis Conway

    I actually think its a good idea. The UK, Canada, and Australia are all looking for a new frigate, not just the US. Wrong bow (below the water) for thin ice operations if you are in the Arctic/Antarctic. It already has provision for a non-rotating AESA radar, other array faces, and passive EO/IR operations. I particularly like the F125 CODLAG propulsion and power generation system, although I would prefer to see the National Security Cutter system used upgraded to a similar system with gas turbines in place of the diesels, and an electric motor in place of the LM2500. All in all a pretty sharp suggestion.

    • El_Sid

      Different roles. Type 31e is intended more for the sloop, forward-presence role – the French La Fayette is probably the nearest equivalent. In UK terms it’s the spiritual successor to the Leander, with maybe a bit of Absalon mixed in.

      Type 26 is a battlegroup ASW ship, similar to the improved Spruance. It’s probably the best fit for the Aussie requirement, the question is more about whether they want to deal with BAE and as always, money. My impression is that the Canadians are aiming for something a bit less capable, but I haven’t looked in detail.

      • Curtis Conway

        I understand all this and am proposing that a common spec item that can perform all those missions up front to some extent for a baseline unit could be defined and built for a specific dollar amount. Once delivered, they can turn it into what ever they want, but when in a NATO formation we can expect (count on) a specific level of performance in all warfare areas, and be able to squeeze so many sea-miles out of a specific (efficient and common) propulsion and power generation system. Perhaps the basic weapons loadout be common for mutual support in theater. Now if they actually maintained qualified watch-standers, with commensurate experience and functioning equipment, would be solely up to that countries navy. That is all I was suggesting. Makes too much sense and no one would do it.

        • El_Sid

          The trouble is that you reach a point with a common design that by the time you’ve added in all the possibilities, you end up with something complex that’s a lot more expensive than specialist ships. In effect the decision to go from 13xT26 to (8xT26+5xT31e) is an admission that T26, with all its ASW quieting, is massive overkill for the sloop role – BAE have proposed an “OPV” version of the hull, but the RN haven’t been interested.

          • Curtis Conway

            Well, ASW is an issue and everyone needs to be able to do it to some extent. However, in the modern battle-space, if one cannot perform AAW at least to a medium range, with a very robust X-band coverage, hopefully non-rotating (but I have a huge respect for SPQ-9B) then you will not persist when the bubble goes up, and it makes do difference you size are, you are going to die. I get such a kick out of the argument that “no one will waste this or that on such a small target”. If your in a formation, and this thing hunting you is not looking for something specific, it WILL SINK the first thing it finds, regardless of size. Then they try to give this weapon smarts, but deny that the adversary has national assets that can be used for targeting . . . and they are all “on a river in Egypt”.

  • Kenneth Millstein

    If we, meaning the US Navy purchased a man of war ship from the UK it must be the first time in history that we ever purchased a vessel from another country. If someone knows if that would be a first,
    please let me know. Thank you.

    • Secundius

      I can’t say with 100% certainty about Direct Ship Purchases of Naval Ships, but Several Hull Designs were Obtained from Great Britain. Mostly Escort Vessels (aka the “Flower” class Corvette). And the US Army Corps of Engineers DID Purchase Specialized Ship’s from Great Britain in Repairing Foreign Shipping Ports AFTER they we Badly Damaged and/or Outright Destroyed by “Allied” Nations…

      • Kenneth Millstein

        Thank you so much. I really appreciate the detail you put into your reply.
        Thanks again. Ken
        PS: I am a US Navy veteran having served from 1966 to 1972 aboard two famous destroyers, they both were known for being the first and last in a certain type of DD. If you would really like to know why they were first and last let me know and I would be happy to go into the details.

        • Secundius

          The 1957 Movie “Enemy Below”, the Buckley class Destroyer-Escort used was a “Modified” Flower class Corvette. Which was Oil Fueled Turbo-Electric Steam Turbines, instead of the British Twin Triple-Expansion Boilers…

          • Kenneth Millstein

            I loved that movie as it reminded me of my days in the Navy. Robert Mitchum, Curt Jurgens and Theodore Bikel were all terrific. It had a sorrowful and poignant ending. Re: My two DDs were special as follows: the USS Gyatt DD-712 was my first ship, which was a WWII Geary class destroyer and was the first surface warship to fire off a guided missile. It was fired off from the stern and when fired the stern actually went under water for a few seconds. It was the fore runner of today’s DDG class destroyers. It fired the test missile in the middle 1960s. My second destroyer was the USS Mullinnix DD-944 which was a Forest Sherman Class destroyer. It was the very last all gun destroyer ever built. It did two tours off the coast of South Vietnam (Westpac) in support of our valiant Solders, Marines and Sailors on the ground and rivers. Those three 5″ 54 gun mounts had a range of about 12 or 15 miles (it’s been awhile) as well two 3″ mounts. It was exactly the same class of destroyer (the USS Maddox) that was supposedly attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin by North Vietnamese gun boats on 2 August 1964 which falsely got us into the war. Thank you and I hope you enjoyed reading a little bit about my Naval duty as a Quartermaster.

          • Secundius

            I just recently saw that “YouTube” is actually showing that movie, “Enemy Below” and for Free too…

          • Secundius

            As I recall the “Sumner/Gearing” classes of Destroyers was a “Niche” design. Bridging the gap/void between the Fletcher class Destroyer and the Oakland class Light Cruiser, a “Pocket/Small” Cruiser, which could “Fly Flag” in a Merchant Convoy and Easily “Hold It’s Own” to a Light Cruiser in a Naval Gun Duel…

          • Kenneth Millstein

            Once again thank you for insight. I hope you found my Naval service both interesting and somewhat unique. Best wishes and the USNI is lucky to have such a knowledgeable member on the Disqus system. Ken

          • Secundius

            I noticed a Couple of Things in the Movie “Enemy Below”?/! And wasn’t aware of their Common Usage aboard ship. One was the “Wall-Mounted Cooled Water Fountain” in the Sick-Bay and the “Short-Wave/AM
            Radio’s” mounted on the “Bulkheads” throughout the Ship. Was the Latter in Common Use?/! I would the need for Secrecy prevented their Common Usage…

          • Kenneth Millstein

            There were water coolers in the mess deck and perhaps in the sickbay, and I can say with a great degree of certainty that neither of my two ships had any “Short-Wave/AM Radio’s” mounted on any “Bulkheads”. The ship in the movie was a one funnel Destroyer Escort from WWII and perhaps in that era they had such luxury’s because to serve on such a small ship required some of them.

          • Secundius

            About 15-1/4-days Steaming Time at 15kts?/! Or just maybe the the Fact that DeLuxe Color used a 1957 Destroyer Escort to Portray a 1944 Ship! A the “Producers” didn’t think that Naval Buffs would see the Difference. And the Actual Ship DE-181, Staub DIDN’T Ram a U-Boot and was Decommissioned in 1973 and also Mounted a “Hedgehog” ASW Mortar. Which the Movie DIDN’T Show…

          • Kenneth Millstein

            I think you should check out the movie “Sink The Bismarck” which is terrific is a terrific account of the British Navy going after the Bismarck. It is a mid-1960s movie starring Kenneth Moore and is in black and white. Check it out if you can obtain it. Enjoy!