Alternate warships of nations

[RamscoopRaider]

I'm almost certain the batch 2 and likely beyond (because if the USN actually just buys 20 instead of a lot more than that I'll eat my metaphorical hat) constellations will have those extra cells. Why they didn't have it as part of the design requirement from the word go beats me. Same with having that small of a main gun. 57mm is way way too small for a ship of that size.

The goal of the Constellations was to have a proven design fast and at a reasonable cost, redesigning to cram in an extra 16 cells would take time and money that detracts from both and increases the risk of no frigates

Tying size of gun to size of ships is foolish, people could say the same about 5" as a main gun caliber for a 6000 ton ship in the 50's. 57mm has a low manning requirement and can fire smart shells for supplemental missile defense, in addition to warning shots/potting drones. 76mm does not offer that much more range for potting drones and requires more crew/weight and the USN has phased it out, 5"mm offers noticeably more range and shore bombardment but is much bigger and more crew requirements. Given low manning is a priority for the design 57mm is about perfect

 

[Lascaris]

Because by the time you've put a bigger gun, more cells, more sensors your cheap frigate balloons in cost and size and you have to start cutting order numbers. The Constellation's are not meant to be independent surface combatants, that's the Burke's, they meant to be ASW frigates with limited other capabilities which are cheap and quick to get into the fleet to fill the gap created by the failure of the LCS program and to bulk out strike groups.
Requirement creep has destroyed so many defence programs in the last few decades and until now the Constellation's class has been impressively disciplined, here's hoping they ignore any desires to tinker and instead churn them out it large numbers as is.

USN seems to shorta disagree with this given the changes to the original Italian design and the cost not unsurprisingly keep creeping upwards.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Because by the time you've put a bigger gun, more cells, more sensors your cheap frigate balloons in cost and size and you have to start cutting order numbers. The Constellation's are not meant to be independent surface combatants, that's the Burke's, they meant to be ASW frigates with limited other capabilities which are cheap and quick to get into the fleet to fill the gap created by the failure of the LCS program and to bulk out strike groups.
Requirement creep has destroyed so many defence programs in the last few decades and until now the Constellation's class has been impressively disciplined, here's hoping they ignore any desires to tinker and instead churn them out it large numbers as is.

The official estimated costs are less than 30 million and a extra 200 tons per hull to add those extra cells which is small beans in terms of what extra capability that brings. For batch 1 not having them makes sense due to hulls being needed ASAP . For batch 2 and beyond(since I really doubt the final count will be just 20 hulls) given they have the time to do the design work not so much

 

[Thoresby]

USN seems to shorta disagree with this given the changes to the original Italian design and the cost not unsurprisingly keep creeping upwards.

By USN standards the amount of tweaking is surprisingly low but I agree, it would have been better if they'd been more disciplined and made fewer changes.

The official estimated costs are less than 30 million and a extra 200 tons per hull to add those extra cells which is small beans in terms of what extra capability that brings. For batch 1 not having them makes sense due to hulls being needed ASAP . For batch 2 and beyond(since I really doubt the final count will be just 20 hulls) given they have the time to do the design work not so much

Currently they are about $1 billion a pop but the emphasise is on getting that down not up. Equally 200 tons isn't much but it's forward and it cuts down margins also more broadly once you open up the plans to changes everyone with a pet cause is going to want to make further changes. The USN needs to be really disciplined and just say no, it needs 80 good enough ships not 70 slightly better ships.

 

[sparky42]

By USN standards the amount of tweaking is surprisingly low but I agree, it would have been better if they'd been more disciplined and made fewer changes.



Currently they are about $1 billion a pop but the emphasise is on getting that down not up. Equally 200 tons isn't much but it's forward and it cuts down margins also more broadly once you open up the plans to changes everyone with a pet cause is going to want to make further changes. The USN needs to be really disciplined and just say no, it needs 80 good enough ships not 70 slightly better ships.

Just look at the issues the Australians are having modifying the Type 26.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Honestly after thinking more on it I suspect we'll just have to wait and see what the batch/flight IIs end up looking like. Wouldn't be surprised if the VLS count goes up but it's equally likely it doesn't

 

[Hammerbolt]

Due to the much increased threat of air attack, and the events of the 1st half of 1940, HMS Howe's design is altered, delaying it's construction by a year. When it comes out, it's as the world's 1st anti-aircraft battleship. All main and secondary turrets have been replaced with twin 4.5" turrets, for a total of 14 turrets (5 per side, 2 aft, 3 forward). An elevated platform at the center of the ship allows for 4 more 8-gun pompoms to be installed, at 2 per side, plus another 2 quad pom-pom abaft A turret and 2 abaft X, for a total of 16 pom-pom mounts. Acelerating it's construction due to a perceived need for a fast carrier escort, the ship commissoned in June 1942 (in OTL, supply delays & diversions delayed this date to August 1942), being sent to assist in Malta-supply runs, specially club runs. As part of the escort of Operation Pedestal, it was directly credited with at least a dozen axis aircraft and with "scaring off" others by the sheer volume of fire. It then spent most of 1943 escorting allied ops in the Med. During the winter of 43-44, it received and extensive refit, receiving new radars and extra short range weapons, after which it assisted in convering D-Day. In In 1945, as AAA-cover leader of the BBP, it saved at least two carriers from kamikaze hits.

(...too much?

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Due to the much increased threat of air attack, and the events of the 1st half of 1940, HMS Howe's design is altered, delaying it's construction by a year. When it comes out, it's as the world's 1st anti-aircraft battleship. All main and secondary turrets have been replaced with twin 4.5" turrets, for a total of 14 turrets (5 per side, 2 aft, 3 forward). An elevated platform at the center of the ship allows for 4 more 8-gun pompoms to be installed, at 2 per side, plus another 2 quad pom-pom abaft A turret and 2 abaft X, for a total of 16 pom-pom mounts. Acelerating it's construction due to a perceived need for a fast carrier escort, the ship commissoned in June 1942 (in OTL, supply delays & diversions delayed this date to August 1942), being sent to assist in Malta-supply runs, specially club runs. As part of the escort of Operation Pedestal, it was directly credited with at least a dozen axis aircraft and with "scaring off" others by the sheer volume of fire. It then spent most of 1943 escorting allied ops in the Med. During the winter of 43-44, it received and extensive refit, receiving new radars and extra short range weapons, after which it assisted in convering D-Day. In In 1945, as AAA-cover leader of the BBP, it saved at least two carriers from kamikaze hits.

(...too much?

I don't think you could reasonably justify the costs of an enormous AA ship at any time, and almost certainly not before the sinking of Repulse and PoW. In 1940, the Royal Navy desperately needs modern battleships to counter the new German and Italian battleships, so this is probably a non-starter. Investing that money in five light AA cruisers would be a much better choice.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Honestly if your going to get a AA heavy ship it's probably more likely to see the Alaskas or Jean Bart become it vs any RN battleship

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

Speaking of current events and how they relate to Naval designs. I wonder if the current situation in the red sea area have made the USN start to regret only having 32 VLS cells on at least the batch 1 constellations due to said real world experience

Evolved Sea Sparrow can be quad-packed*, so 4 ESSM per cell. That helps with numbers

*Same goes for CAMM/Sea Viper. CAMM-ER can be double packed.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Evolved Sea Sparrow can be quad-packed*, so 4 ESSM per cell. That helps with numbers

*Same goes for CAMM/Sea Viper. CAMM-ER can be double packed.

true but ESSM lacks the range for area missile defense. Good for local defense though.
speaking of ESSM I wonder how many you can put into a MK57 cell....

 

[RamscoopRaider]

true but ESSM lacks the range for area missile defense. Good for local defense though.
speaking of ESSM I wonder how many you can put into a MK57 cell....

AFAIK the answer is 6 missiles per MK57 cell, but i don't recall where I read that

 

[CV12Hornet]

I mean, bluntly the US is still going to be swimming in Burkes for the foreseeable future for precisely this sort of mission, so the lower cell count of the Constellations is IMO not a big deal.

 

[scifilovr]

The only real problem with the Burkes is that the hull is getting really overstressed, the Navy just keeps putting more stuff into a hull that was designed for 8,000 tons and is now up to around 10,000. Outside of that hard limit of capability, it's a phenomenal platform.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

The only real problem with the Burkes is that the hull is getting really overstressed, the Navy just keeps putting more stuff into a hull that was designed for 8,000 tons and is now up to around 10,000. Outside of that hard limit of capability, it's a phenomenal platform.

Why they never made the hull longer to accommodate that growth beats the hell out of me. Especially given you could beef up the range if you did so.
Well that and the orginal ones lacking hangars. That was a weird decision.

 

[scifilovr]

Why they never made the hull longer to accommodate that growth beats the hell out of me. Especially given you could beef up the range if you did so.
Well that and the orginal ones lacking hangars. That was a weird decision.

It's probably a combination of no one actually wanting to put in the money for the redesign, not thinking replacement programs would keep getting their budgets slashed or ideas being executed poorly, and no one realizing that we were going to be competing with other blue water navies until the first hulls were already over twenty years old.

 

[Captain Seafort]

It's probably a combination of no one actually wanting to put in the money for the redesign, not thinking replacement programs would keep getting their budgets slashed or ideas being executed poorly, and no one realizing that we were going to be competing with other blue water navies until the first hulls were already over twenty years old.

The RN wasn't exactly flush, or looking to fight WW3 single-handed, when the Type 42 Batch 3s were designed. It didn't stop them being 40-50ft longer.

 

[JudgeKing]

The RN wasn't exactly flush, or looking to fight WW3 single-handed, when the Type 42 Batch 3s were designed. It didn't stop them being 40-50ft longer.

IIRC, the Type 42 Batch 3s weren't stretched so much as they were using the original design, rather than the cut down version that the first two batches were.

 

[Captain Seafort]

IIRC, the Type 42 Batch 3s weren't stretched so much as they were using the original design, rather than the cut down version that the first two batches were.

My understanding is that they were stretched close to the limits of the basic design - hence why they needed the extra bracing.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Why they never made the hull longer to accommodate that growth beats the hell out of me. Especially given you could beef up the range if you did so.
Well that and the orginal ones lacking hangars. That was a weird decision.

They did

Flight IIA and III are 4.5 feet longer than Flight I&II

The original ones lacking hangars makes sense, as the only US destroyers with hangars to that point were the Spru cans which had an ASW role and they were only meant to be built for a brief period before being succeeded


Anyways there were some plans for a bigger stretch floating around, but 90's were peace dividend time and everything on the cheap, especially for a stopgap, which IIA was supposed to be. Then DDG-1000 failed, and there was an immediate "we need DDG's now" so Burkes with no change to get them built fast, and budgets are still tight enough that designing the later flight III's with a stretch would take away resources from the actual replacement which is sorely needed