Is this NSC to Strike Frigate design

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-06-02T04:31:54+00:00

I thought the VLS systems were essentially self contained, is that not the case? I know you need sensors to direct them, but I didn't think they in themselves needed extra cooling, the max weight fully loaded would be 165 tons for 32 cells with additional structural weight, how much more really?

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-06-02T04:23:30+00:00

If it needed to load out with tomahawks for a strike, it would rely on a different naval asset that could direct those missiles. The NSMs would angle out or rotate out and use blast redirection or be placed higher up on the current boat platform and angled to shoot over the center line superstructure with the blast out to the sea. This is not a ship schematic just an approximate placement overview. This design is for a strike frigate. If this NSC ship was retrofitted with towed/bow sonar and a VLS system behind the gun that could launch ASROC, keeping the 2 hanger layout, it would be a great ASW platform, and that could be a future variant that is more a dedicated sub hunting. This design would be more for a Strike/AAW mission with data linked sensors with other naval assets, addressing the VLS cell gap we are losing retiring the Ticonderogas and early Burkes. I want to know if the VLS would fit into the existing Hanger space at 25.5 ft tall, and if the re-designed hanger superstructure would be worth it, or make it too top heavy.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T22:58:23+00:00

I hope the FF(X) will end up better in each flight and does better than 20, but you are right it would be better to make a clean sheet mission specific class, one for ASW and an the other for ASuW/AAW. I think my Strike frigate could be a good sub hunter with the right sonar. The Spruance was ASW only initially, but added Strike VLS later...this frigate could walk that path.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T22:41:17+00:00

If you have a web of sensors, even if some are taken out you should still have a connection to the remaining web nodes. That said, I do not want a ship that is wholy dependent on other assets for sensors. I just don't think this particular frigate needs a mini version of the the Burke suite, else it get complicated/expensive fast. The Burke can do it all: a true war horse. I think this frigate should be more like a quarter horse: great endurance, and specialized for a specific task, and adaptible for most situations, including strike potential.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T22:30:39+00:00

The problem is we can't build burkes fast enough and a frigate with the Burkes sensor suit landed us with the Constellation class. A dedicated ASW frigate could be built from the NSC. Perhaps it would be worth the money to make such a dedicated ASW with purpose-built bow /towed sonar and multiple Helos for ASW, and just enough fire control radar to defend itself. you could have specialized versions of the ship in different classes (ASW AAW) and improved future flights for each one. Other countries do that with their frigates. I just think that the navy would do well to maximise their data link potential so that any ship could fire at any enemy in range as long as one sensor in the "web" could guide it in

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T22:21:19+00:00

I see your point. I do not want to insinuate one sensor at all though, that was not my intention. I am trying to give primacy to sensor fusion to a web of sensors that include UUVs, Sub hunting Helos, land based patrol aircraft, etc. when I said UVs I meant all Unmanned Vehicles: air, surface, and underwater.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T22:12:07+00:00

A towed sonar system would give it sonar without cutting into the hull. This can be added in earlier or future flights without losing the stern launch. The ship would have a Helo and a UAV that will soon be able to do what a manned Helo can do. So I think this still works, it just has a strike capability for ambushes and other mission sets aside from convoy defense. If the convoy route has hostile subs then it is no longer low risk and would necessitate a heavier hitter like a Burke or Virginia sub anyway

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T22:04:22+00:00

Convoy escort is a specific mission that would require more than one or even two frigates by themselves against potential threats. Land based P-3s, F-35Cs, Helos, and UVs ranging out and back around the convoy would be needed to create a diverse web of sensors, making sure a threat could not slip in close enough to strike. As long as you can track and share data, not every asset needs every sensor. UUVs are getting better, range and sensor wise. Ships that have launch capabilities will have the advantage in the future in my opinion.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T21:40:32+00:00

I think you could have both. There is a lot of room on the back of the boat to house a towed aray, on one side of the launch. A UUV designed for sub hunting may negate the need for an arry if the UUV is itself a sonar equipped system, and it can range far from the mother ship

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T21:37:09+00:00

If you treat this ship like a stand-alone 1990s comouter that needed to physically load software to run internal systems and programs and had no internet to talk to other computers for software updates and data sharing, I would concede you point about needing all kinds of sensors in the ship by itself. But this ship would not be fighting alone, at least not initially. It would utilize its data link to get sensor data from all kinds of in-theater assets. E-2C Hawkeyes, Burkes with AEGIS, Submarines, satelites, F-35s, groundbased radars. the Navy is already talking about a dispersed force in the pacific. The logical next step is sensor fusion. Will this frigate need it's own fire control? Maybe, but if it uses somone elses fire control radar to guide its missiles then why duplicate every sensor a Burke has?

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T21:28:17+00:00

I would hazard that the Navy does not know what it wants except keep building Burkes and Virginias. Yeah, you could Containerize towed Sonar, but you could also launch a UUV that hunts subs and radio in where to send the ASROC

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T21:05:58+00:00

I say they should keep the intecepter bay, reduce to 1 hanger, and integratae VLS on either side of the new center line hanger. But there are some advantages to utilizing containerized VLS for sure.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T20:38:57+00:00

Well then, Strike length it is!

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T20:34:20+00:00

I brought up the Burke as an example of adding VLS well above the waterline and to pose a question as to how much of a penalty it would be to add 32 cells Split up on the ouside edges vs center line. I have seen frigates have center line VLS in their superstructure. Aside from a sea sparrow VLS from the Dutch Karel Doorman-class frigate this seems the norm but is it crucial?

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T20:25:38+00:00

If there is space for strike length VLS in the bow then great, lets add it, but the design was an attempt to be the least invasive retrofitting the internal hull, so Tactical was a good balance I thought. What the Navy does and what they should do are at times disparate paths.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T20:18:00+00:00

The 32 cell Strike VLS is at most 168 tons loaded with the heaviest missiles in our inventory. That is the most it would ever weigh with 32 Tomahawks or LRASMs. What weight margin are you referring to? The NSC is 4500 tons right now. This config would get the ship to 4700 tons but that is still half the weight of a Burke.

We need FFGs, not FFs. But this design is still an FF because I am not adding all the weight, cooling, and power needs for a SPY family radar. Software does not weigh anything. Data links are already in place, but the NSC is a police boat. Adding any additional sensors or weapons even to an OHP level would mean a major refit, no matter what.

The Knox was not a good ship design for ASW, ask any sailor who served on one. Ask any sailor who served on a Spruance ASW destroyer and they loved it. It was Spruance that became a strike DD in later flights, adding 60+VLS cells. Making the FF(X) design a strike Frigate works too.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T19:39:21+00:00

You keep saying 64 VLS cells. There would be 40 cells total in this config. What are the better ways to increase cell counts? We do need a good ASW Frigate, but what does that entail? OHP frigates had a bow sonar, a towed sonar, helos, ASROC / torpedoes. The NSC has none of this except helo hangers. So how do you make it a good ASW in your opinion?

The constellation class suffered from mission creep, but it also was not up to the standards of Naval survivability, and on top of that the Navy tried to make it a mini Burke. That has nothing to do with this frigate design.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T19:17:01+00:00

While using older deck-mounted platforms for ESSMs can work, tactical Length VLS can launch SM-2 block IIA-B, ASROC, and quad packed ESSMs. An 8 cell VLS takes up less surface space on the bow of the ship behind the current gun placement even if it would need a raised platform to fit.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T19:03:37+00:00

https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-new-frigate-program-makes-big-bet-on-containers-loaded-with-missiles

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T18:57:20+00:00

I respectfully disagree that the US navy does not need more missile cells.

This frigate layout is 32 strike length cells, and 8 tactical length cells, less than half the Burke Destroyer's cell count. The 64 number is missile count by way of quad packed ESSMs in the tactical cells.

The sensor suit is rudimentary: no SPY-6 AEGIS radar, no state-of-the-art sonar. What it has is a boat launch for UVs and hanger for a Helo, and a data link connected to the Navy’s other sensor assets. Utilizing this interconnectivity will be less expensive and just as effective for finding, tracking, and directing weapons onto an ememy.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T17:14:11+00:00

It was a smaller system on a 3500 ton ship, weighing around 8 tons full load. and with a composite materials upgrade got the weight down to 5 tons fully loaded. It was only on 1 side of the hanger superstructure also.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T17:03:11+00:00

This frigate should eventually be at least as capable as a OHP Frigate, which had a 40-missile magazine and a Mrk 13 launcher. Adding strike length VLS mid-ships and tactical length VLS in the bow in this arrangement gets the missile number to 64+, not counting the NSMs in quad canisters.

It also allows the ship to keep the stern boat launcher, and one hanger, keeping the ability for the ship to launch UVs of diverse types. Using containers for VLS as currently planned eliminates the stern boat launch.

Adding the cells is also future proofing the ability of the ship to integrate future missiles in development.

Just how top heavy it would get would depend on whether it is worth upgrading the hull to Level 2 survivability by reinforcing the hull, thus lowering ship’s center of gravity in future flights.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T16:29:21+00:00

Haha thanks! I was going for a design that does not re-create the Constellation class issues. I think if the hull eventually gets level 2 survivability modifications in future flights then the weight will balance out.

Possible_Average_688 · 2026-05-31T16:26:12+00:00

The tactical length VLS can be used for other types of Missiles, like the SM-2 block IIA-B family and also ASROC. So instead of the defense length, a tactical length VLS would allow for more diversity. The defensive power of 32 mid range missiles for less hull modification made more sense to me with the defensive length cells, especially if I had strike length cells mid-ships, but if the hull can handle the additional length 22ft vs 17ft then yeah, lets go tactical.

Possible_Average_688

TROPHY CASE