>>65068451
The answer to that is a resounding maybe

>>65068451
No, because they're not intended for air defense and the mines were never what was stopping shipping.

>>65068451
One of them is still there and has been laying low since all this started. Find me any article that says what the USS Canberra has been doing for the past 2 months, much less a picture.

>>65068462
>No, because they're not intended for air defense
Well then that means the ship has no value. If it can't do literally everything then we should just get rid of it.

>>65068570
Are they those that snap in half if you go fast or the water is slightly choppy?

>>65068568
Apparently it's off the coast of India right now.

https://www.cruisingearth.com/ship-tracker/united-states-navy/uss-canberra/

>>65068451
Sure, if Iran had actually been successful in mining the strait. Otherwise, not so much.

>>65068579
Independence (pictured in the OP) is the one where cracks were identified in a few of the early hulls and they were all modified to reinforce that spot.

Freedom (the monohull) is the one where the transmission would explode if you tried to go over 14 knots, and the Navy hated them so much that they tried to retire the entire class rather than pay to cut them open to replace the transmissions.

>>65068581
Couple of issues with that:
The data is 3 days old.
Its based solely on AIS, which really can't be trusted in this circumstance.

I'm not saying I know for sure where it is, but the last place I would actually expect it to be is what is being broadcast on open channels.

>>65068878
>The data is 3 days old.
Check again homie, that shit is from a year ago.

>>65068451
For minesweepers, they aren't bad vessels.

>>65068451
Based on how it looks I want to love it but given all the problems I just can't.

>>65070444
What problems?

File: plague-doctor.gif (774.5 KB)

774.5 KB GIF

>>65068451
Who have plague doctors ever helped?

>>65069038
Don't minesweepers need to be non-magnetic to not set off the mines?

>>65073132
No, since it's not 1942 and we don't literally sweep mines with drag chains anymore.

>>65073132
There are really smart bottom mines out there these days that can go off based on anything from magnetic signature to passive sonar to the faint change in water pressure caused by a ship passing nearby, and use tricks like high-rate-of-bearing-change to tell if a target is close enough or ship-counting to get the middle ships in a convoy.

All of this high-tech bottom-mine stuff--which almost sank Princeton back in '91--makes driving minesweepers into minefields extremely risky, non-ferrous hull or not. So, the USN has been wanting for a long time to switch to using helos (for Ye Olde Floating Mines) and USV/UUVs for bottom mines, with the ship deploying them staying several NM outside of the minefield. That means that hull materials become somewhat moot.

That's all well and good, of course, but on the other hand, the MCM module for LCS has had a lot of problems over the years. We've had threads the last few weeks arguing over whether the current MCM module actually measures up to what was originally promised two decades ago. Jury's still out, partly because the USN doesn't seem to want to let potential enemies know too much about the actual strengths and weaknesses of the systems.

The future is going to have autonomous AI mines that move and setup around the globe. The ocean will be unusable

>>65068451
No, only reason the strait is "blocked" is because of Insurance.

>>65068451
Yes, that is in fact exactly the role they were intended for.
People SEVERELY underestimate the amount of damage the failure of the LCS program did to the Navy.
The lack of small ships to take over routine duties ended up defaulting those jobs over to the big ships, which wore them out faster so some of them had to be retired, so there were fewer ships, so the left over ships had to pull double duty, so some of them wore out and had to be retired and so on and so forth. It's a death spiral everyone is looking at and nobody wants to talk about. The new frigate program was supposed to fix that by urgently pumping out an imported, ready made design, but that was also mismanaged into just another disaster.
And now that the actual kind of warfare the LCS was actually intended to do is current and relevant it's even worse.
The Zumwalt program also did its share of damage, but the LCS was really the big one.

>>65068451
They could be used to deplete enemy ammo.

>>65068451
Depends on if Trump is willing to risk losing one and is ok with expending a shitload of SMs to keep it.

>>65073235
They can't take over routine duties, they don't have a sonar or air defence nor do they cast a presence in the area. All they can do is patrol in safe waters at the cost of $470m each. Awful, awful ships.

>>65073429
I don't think you understand just how bad it is, or what the problem is. The problem isn't just that it can't do that, the problem is that it was supposed to do that with the whole multi mission/modular/whatever concept. It's not just that the ships are a waste of money, it's that the opportunity cost of building this garbage and not something useful made waves that spread outwards and put the rest of the navy into overdrive which caused echoing knock on effects.
So when a ship breaks down because it's been on an extended deployment, the LCS is one of the biggest contributing factors to that fuckup, just silently ruining everything from the background.

>>65073132
The other replies you got are absolutely right. However:
That aluminum hull that everyone is always bitching about is actually less magnetic than a steel hull.
>That's all well and good, of course, but on the other hand, the MCM module for LCS has had a lot of problems over the years.
I wouldn't call "a lot of problems." Its just that a few elements required for development time than was initially predicted. People seem to forget or gloss over how ambitious the LCS Project was and how much of it (more or less) went right. The idea that it took a few extra years to figure out an entirely new method for dealing with mines based entirely on a technology that wasn't mature and being fleshed out in realtime in concurrence with the development took slightly longer than the original planners expected is so kind of massive failure is...having radically high standards.

>>65073235
The USN has had a major blindspot for small ships more like a century now. The LCS was the first real attempt to address that. You know those guys in Africa who try build a helicopter despite never having been around them or even knowing anyone who has ever ridden in one?

>>65073425
Unironically, yes.

>>65073429
>>65073447
Pretty sure you two are talking about different things. Maybe use less pronouns?

>>65073612
>The USN has had a major blindspot for small ships more like a century now. The LCS was the first real attempt to address that.
OHP you retard.

>>65073632
Ah yes, the largest possible small surface combatant possible that was started back in the early 70s (over half a centurey ago) that required RN input and is the only project anyone can ever point to.
I'm not saying the OHP doesn't exist, I'm saying that its an anomoly in a prolonged period of the USN not doing a great job with small ships. If you want, I can give you the other two: Knox and Pegasus, both from around the same time.

>>65073429
>All they can do is patrol in safe waters at the cost of $470m each. Awful, awful ships.
Meanwhile, they're being replaced with a ship that has NO mission package support and and only patrol in safe waters at a cost upwards of $700m apiece.

>>65073632
>OHP you retard.
The 4200t OHP? You mean the class that displaced as much as a pre-WWII cruiser, with two helicopters, 40 medium missiles, 2x triple torpedo launchers and an automatic 3 inch dual purpose gun. That one?

I really like OHPs, but the fact that Americans bring them up to show they totally don't have a problem designing and building low capability and low cost ships pretty much just immediately proves the point that they do.

>>65073733
Anything too small to carry a helicopter is not operationally relevant in the modern world.

>>65073733
>You mean the class that displaced as much as a pre-WWII cruiser, with two helicopters, 40 medium missiles, 2x triple torpedo launchers and an automatic 3 inch dual purpose gun.
Also easily refitted with an additional 32 ESSM.
Meaning the 4200 ton midget can outpunch state of the art modern British destroyers.

>>65073712
Before Knox, there was Garcia.
Before Garcia, there was Bronstein and Claud Jones.
Before those, there was Dealy, and before that, you get into small boys that fought off Samar.

It seems like a fairly continuous line of DE/frigates up through the OHPs.

>>65074375
Oh, I should add:
Before Pegasus, there was Asheville.
Before Asheville, there were multiple PGM classes, dating back to WWII.

>>65068451
I Littorally don't know what this ships role is

Imagine if they had called it the Configurable Multimission Corvette and not fucked around with Freedom at all.

>>65068568
>Canberra
on smoko u cunt

>>65074474
I don't understand your Aussie jibberjabber but I salute you regardless.

>>65074460
Add to that dropping the asinine 40kt+ (50kt+ preferred) requirement and replacing it with a requirement for a couple Mk 41s, and you'd have something.

>>65073742
anything that requires a 50 million dollar+ helicopter to perform its mission is too expensive to deploy to random makework tasks

>>65068451
Would've been great for the Coast Guard

>>65077219
The helicopters are the mission. Every ship is just a helicopter carrier with a couple of ancillary features.

>>65077257
The Coast Guard needs much more endurance than the LCSes have because they don't have a global logistics network like the Navy.

>>65077205
Considering that it won't be required to operate independently in a denied environment and just needs to not be a sitting duck for backline roles, what's the proper number of VLS cells?

>>65077392
Because if you have more cells than the opponent it means you automatically win, there are no other considerations in modern warfare than whether you have more cells than your opponent. What a stupid fucking question.

>>65073733
>I really like OHPs, but the fact that Americans bring them up to show they totally don't have a problem designing and building low capability and low cost ships pretty much just immediately proves the point that they do.
I don't really get why that was such a problem
>Tell the navy to design a new OHP replacement with VLS and modern electronics
>Can have 1-2 kilotons more displacement than the OHP, but no more
>Only needs to be as fast as a Burke, so no finicky high speed designs
>Anybody adovcating for multi-mission modules in the requirements phase gets raped in the ass with a chainsaw
Seems like you coulda gotten something considerably better than the LCS with those specifications. Maybe you could even use it for littoral combat!

>>65078205
>Because if you have more cells than the opponent it means you automatically win
This is what the Chinese actually believe, that modern surface combatants are just a revival of 18th century naval ratings replacing guns with missile tubes.
Shit, why don't we just design ships that way, you could get more cells if you start using the starboard and port sides of the vessels for additional storage. The missile doesn't care where it's launched from.

>>65078219
>I think what the Navy really needs is a 6000-ton mini Burke that's worse in every way
Why not build more Burkes?

>>65078518
>Why not build more Burkes?
Because Burkes are large and crew heavy ships that are overkill for a lot of the second line duties (like escorting convoys) the navy needs to do. On top of that it's an old design that isn't especially efficient to construct, and is bassically tapped out as far as upgrade potential. More Burke's isn't an efficient response to the US Navy being badly overstretched/having manpower retention problems. And long term will leave the USN stuck with a lot of increasingly outdated surface warships that can't really be modernized further.

>>65078575
The Burkes themselves demonstrated that though old, their design is less outdated than the euro frigate doctrine by virtue of the fact the Iranians were following it when they got smoked by them. The Constellation would in turn be nothing but fodder for Chinese destroyers and aircraft.

>>65078575
What makes you think that a 6000 ton mini-Burke would have disproportionately lower crewing requirements?

>>65073733
NTA but I think the last actual small surface combatant was the Pegasus and it was more retired due to obscure BUPERS issues than being a bad design. Pretty cool little ship in my opinion. It was a while ago though

>>65078598
40 years in automation advancements?

>>65078583
>The Burke's can kill dog shit Iranian warships 1/10th their size
>This proves there are no greater strategic problems associated with the US Surface fleet not having a proper second line warship to augment the Burkes
I'll admit I'm not sure I quite follow the logic.

> The Constellation would in turn be nothing but fodder for Chinese
The idea was that the US woulda just designed a frigate to their own specs/standards from the start. Rather than the fuckup with the Constelation of grabbing the FREM as a quick off the shelf design, but then trying to re-engineer it into an entirely different warship to meet US requirements.

Of course that'd require the US Navy to not be huge retards. So I suppose we'll have to resign ourselves to the FF(X) instead. It'll at least have an efficiency advantage in terms of also being fodder against Chinese Corvettes.

>What makes you think that a 6000 ton mini-Burke would have disproportionately lower crewing requirements?
Maybe cause it'd be a smaller ship that wasn't designed in the early 1980s? Though even if it isn't massively disproportionately lower (complement of 200 like the Constellation), it's still 2500 sailors easier to crew 20 frigates like that than it is to crew 20 burkes.

>>65078699
If you just didn't build 20 ships that would be 6000 fewer crew. Lower manning requirements are only an advantage when they don't impact capabilities.

>>65068451
What's the purpose of having a badminton court in the back?

>>65077323
>Every ship is just a helicopter carrier with a couple of ancillary features.
That was true back in the 80's and 90's, but technology has progressed infinitely since then

>>65078803
See >>65077323

>>65077392
8 really isn't enough. 16 would be the minimum, with 32 being "really nice".
Without a proper SPY radar and Aegis computer (or using a stripped-down frigate Aegis that doesn't have all of the features of a CRUDES version), you're mostly looking at ASROC for ASW and ESSM for anti-air, although it should be possible to use SM-2 now that it's moving to the same AMRAAM-derived seeker as SM-6. Having more cells *does* mean that admirals can play games like loading up a couple ships with SM-6 or maybe even SM-3 and using them like baby arsenal ships for a Burke to control using CEC, but that's a minor benefit.
As a side note, the newest ESSM version has about the same official range as the old SM1-MR used by the OHPs. So, while it's officially self-defense, it does have the range needed to defend nearby merchies in a pinch.

>>65078812
And we've put all of that tech into stuff we can stick on helicopters.

>>65078821
32 is too many, as you noted you're not getting the full value out of them without AEGIS. The arsenal shit is stupid, you're better off with lower spec frigates and an actual arsenal ship.

>>65078845
helicopters are extremely expensive to operate, have limited uptime, etc

>>65079046
And they're so incredibly useful that we put up with all of that shit anyway.

>>65068451
>designed for this war
>used like a shitty DDG

>>65079120
How'd you manage to be so wrong on both counts?

>>65074401
oof

>>65079044
I'd settle for 16 on an Indy hull with a power plant sized to max out at ~36kts, plus a few topside launchers for JSM and for some of the new anti-drone defenses being experimented with.

>>65079058
because its a easy cope for terrible design choices
eg: same fucking reason the US is still building burkes

Anyone who wants VLS cells on a corvette (or equivalent type of ship) is one of two things:
>Arguing from the position of a local power than has no interest in global power projection
>Or a complete fucking idiot
There are no other options. VLS belongs on frigates and up only. At least with the level of technology that is currently available or will be in the near to medium future.

>>65079176
I don't see what you'd gain from speccing less powerful engines that you couldn't get just from using less throttle. The ship would have been better if it wasn't for the silly speed requirement, but the necessary compromises have already been made and you're not going to unmake them without a keel-up redesign. A few VLS probably wouldn't hurt, but I don't think you're gaining much with more than 8. A couple of SM-6s, a couple of VLAs, a few ESSM, plus the NSMs already on it, and you've got a boat that's not a sitting duck and can absolutely ruin the day of a lone ship or sub or plane it runs into.

>>65079316
Okay, but what if it's an LCS-based frigate?

>>65079362
>Okay, but what if it's an LCS-based frigate?
Probably not good as the low draft is only going to exacerbate the weight balancing concerns. And as much as I think the Independence gets a bad rap, its questionable how effective the trimaran style is sized up to frigate tonnage and even more so when you run into the size and placement concerns of a VLS grid.

>>65068451
>welds for everything attaching the bow extremely dubious

For the carrier anti-ballistic picket line, sure.

File: FFG-X_frigate_contenders_Austal_Frigate_2_SNA_2018.png (838.1 KB)

838.1 KB PNG

>>65079388
Austal presented a ~3500 ton Independence-based frigate with a small deck behind the helipad and 16 VLS that seems like a pretty reasonable design. Later on they showed a version with a much larger deck extension and probably in the ~5000t range when the Navy changed the requirement to 32 VLS.

>>65079436
I am aware. What point are you actually trying to convey? Just say it.

>>65079469
That adding 400t of displacement with a little shelf on the back seems fairly straightforward and the trimaran design will give it the stability for a much larger radar than a ship of its size might otherwise be able to fit.

>>65079496
What is your source for the 3.5kt figure? Have you done even a "sniff-test" look at the weight of VLS cells or AEGIS capable radars, nevermind all the required additional infrastructure to support them?
Just because I am aware of the proposals for "LCS frigates" doesn't mean that I also accept all of their bullet points as gospel.

>>65079552
Strike length Mk.41 weighs 16 tons per 8 cells and about 1.5 tons per cell for munitions, so about 56 tons for the VLS.

>>65068451
>LCS
>Gets thrashed by Myanamar, Norks and Vietnam
>Vietnam could do it using 50+ year old US Coast Guard cutters.

Yeah, they are garbage.

>>65079629
>16 tons per 8 cells
No they don't, check again. Still didn't post your source for 3.5kt. Please tell me I'm not just talking with ChatGPT by proxy...