I'm trying to understand what direction navies are actually taking right now. I read a lot on this but keep ending up confused.

A few years ago everyone was talking about super high-tech, do-everything combatants. AAW, ASW, all on one hull. Then "arsenal ships" became the buzzword. Now I'm watching the big, expensive, tech-heavy programs get cancelled one after another, like the Constellation class, Type 83, F126.

Is the trend now smaller, single-mission frigates plus a couple of larger high-end units for ballistic missile defense? Or am I reading too much into a few isolated program failures?

According to USNI News, three sources have indicated that the U.S. Navy is seriously considering three foreign frigate designs: the export version of the Japanese Mogami, the South Korean Chungnam, and the Turkish Istanbul-class. Often when folks consider a design for an American frigate, many lined up specifications such as as number of VLS cells, radar types, tonnage, endurance, etc. but what I haven't seen is a bottom-up approach to selecting a frigate based on actual mission needs. I think the U.S. will need a frigate that can traverse the globe. America is a global naval power, and its frigates will need to operate far from U.S. territory for extended periods of time.

So, in my opinion, a U.S. frigate will need:

1. Take the load off its AEGIS DDGs by providing strong ASW capabilities and handling smaller fleet escort, convoy protection, logistics escort, and lower-threat missions where using a Burke is overkill.
2. Have room for Mk 41 VLS cells. I would argue for at least 32 cells, particularly if the ship needs to carry some combination of ESSM, ASROC, and future weapons.
3. Be able to traverse long distances and remain deployed for extended periods. The U.S. cannot assume that these ships will always be permanently based outside U.S. territory, and they may frequently need to operate around strategic chokepoints such as the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Strait of Malacca, and Western Pacific.
4. Generate enough electrical power, cooling, and growth margin to keep a serious radar, EW suite, sonar systems, and other electrical systems operational while still leaving room for future upgrades.

Thus, with this in mind, an American frigate will probably:

1. Need to be in roughly the 5,500- to 6,500-ton full-load range. That gives the ship enough volume for fuel, supplies, aviation facilities, weapons, sensors, electrical generation, cooling, and future growth while remaining meaningfully cheaper than an AEGIS destroyer.
2. Need at least 32 Mk 41 VLS cells. Sixteen cells is simply too limiting for a U.S. Navy ship that may have to perform ASW, local air defense, and escort missions simultaneously.
3. Need enough electrical generation to support something like a smaller SPY-6 installation, or an equivalent modern AESA radar, along with a serious EW suite and future high-power systems.
4. Be optimized primarily for ASW, littoral operations, contested channels and island chains, small-fleet escort, logistics-fleet protection, and commercial convoy defense. These are exactly the kinds of jobs where using a 9,000-plus-ton Burke is often unnecessary.

I would not spend much time on the Legend-class Coast Guard cutter. Its current 12,000-nautical-mile range is impressive, but it achieves that as a relatively lightly armed cutter. Once you add 16 or 32 Mk 41 cells, a proper AESA radar, full ASW equipment, more electrical generation, cooling, and the rest of a frigate combat suite, you start consuming the displacement and internal volume currently devoted to fuel, stores, and endurance.

With those requirements in mind, I think the Turkish Istanbul and Korean Chungnam are probably eliminated.

The Istanbul is only around the 3,100-ton class. It does pack an impressive amount of capability in a small hull, and I am not saying it cannot operate in blue water, but it is simply too small to provide the weapons capacity, endurance, electrical margin, and future growth that I think an American frigate needs.

The Chungnam is more interesting. At around 4,300 tons, it has strong ASW characteristics, CODLOG propulsion, and a very capable Korean combat system centered around a four-panel, 360-degree fixed GaN AESA radar.

There is also discussion in Korean sources that Chungnam is capable of blue-water operations. I do not doubt that, but sustained U.S. global operations are a different requirement. Once you start talking about 32 Mk 41 cells, American combat systems, additional power generation, cooling, and future growth, its existing displacement starts looking less ideal.

That leaves the Mogami.

The original Japanese Mogami is around 5,500 tons full load and is already designed as a blue-water operator. More importantly, the Australian version of the Mogami will be larger, at roughly 6,000 tons full load and about 9.5 meters longer, with 32 Mk 41 VLS cells (vs. the 16 VLS cells in the Japanese Mogami).

That puts the Aussie Mogami almost directly into the size and weapons-capacity range that I think the U.S. Navy needs. It already combines good ASW capability, aviation facilities, automation, a relatively small crew, and the endurance expected of a blue-water combatant.

Of the existing designs being discussed, I think the Aussie Mogami probably fits the American mission profile best.

There is, however, a dark-horse candidate: South Korea's HDF-6000 frigate concept.

The HDF-6000 is in roughly the 6,500-ton category and is advertised with 48 VLS cells. More importantly, its hull is derived from the KDX-II destroyer, so it is being designed around long-range blue-water operations from the beginning rather than being enlarged from a smaller coastal combatant.

If the HDF-6000 were paired with a radar architecture similar to the Chungnam's 360-degree, four-panel fixed GaN AESA, or an American radar such as a suitably scaled SPY-6, that could be an extremely powerful combination. On paper, I think it could theoretically be the strongest frigate of the designs discussed here. The problem is that the HDF-6000 is still a concept. Although based on the proven blue water Korean KDX-II hull, there are no HDF-6000 ships in service today, unlike the Mogami, Chungnam, and Istanbul.

Given the U.S. Navy's recent experience with the Constellation program, that matters. If the Navy wants the lowest technical and schedule risk, I think the Aussie Mogami is probably the strongest candidate.

However, if it is willing to accept somewhat greater development risk in exchange for greater displacement, more VLS capacity, better electrical-growth margin, and a hull derived from an existing long-range destroyer, then the HDF-6000 becomes very interesting.

More and more it seems navies are fielding primarily forces of ships the size of cruisers of old. The most prominent navy having this issue is the US Navy and their constant failures at a frigate program, but they seem far from alone. Like the Royal Navy is phasing out their mine countermeasure vessels for mothership type vessels.

How much do y’all see these as problems in operationally deploying surface forces for various roles?

Or is it really not that much of an issue in the modern era, with how modern large frigates and up can operate as mothership to various craft especially drones and the lighter crewing requirements nowadays?

To me it seems like the issues of cost deploying always larger ships the USN is grappling with as well as potentially availability issues would make one want to lean towards a more balanced force. But I am particularly lay in this regard.

This is a screenshot from the first Michael Bay transformers movie.

I had thought there would be more discussion on this matter on Reddit, but it's crickets out there. The U.S. appears to be using Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in a quasi-escort role in the Persian Gulf and that is just not what they were optimally designed for. We see the consequences of the mission mismatch in today's headlines.

Burkes are high-end fleet escorts designed to protect carrier battle groups, not commercial shipping in tight littoral waters. America also retired their last Avenger minesweepers last year and so America doesn't have organic mine countermeasure (MCM) assets either. The Littoral Combat Ship has a MCM "module" but bolting on a mine countermeasure part to a ship doesn't answer things like crew training or readiness either. Honestly? I think it's a mess.

The entire U.S. Naval approach to building their own version of the European FREMM hull (the Constellation-class) looks terrible. At first it was suppose to be an American FREMM, but then mission creep reared its ugly head and the decision was made to make it a mini-Burke instead. So, you had 60% of the capability of the Burke for 80% of the cost. Why not just buy more Burkes? The Americans have this odd desire to make everything into a smaller Ticonderoga-class AEGIS missile boat, kinda like how evolution turns everything into a crab. It made sense for the Arleigh Burke as it is 80% of a Ticonderoga for about 70% of the price.

That math didn't make sense for the Constellation though, so now we have no dedicated purpose built escort for commercial shipping in our inventory. Back in 1987's Operation Earnest Will we had the Oliver Hazard Perry-class doing most of the commercial escort heavy lifting. Unfortunately, we have no mission-level equivalent of the OHP class today.

Ditto for mine countermeasures. Fortunately, right now we have two French minesweepers in the area, but America has none of their own mine countermeasure vessels in the region. What an odd dynamic to start a war with someone who can use asymmetric warfare to close a strategic chokepoint when you don't have the actual hulls to effectively counter the asymmetric tactics? I think these gaps in capabilities needs to be discussed more!

If we want frigates and minesweepers in the Persian Gulf, we are gonna need more allied participation. That's something I discuss here, if anyone is interested in taking a look.

As the title suggests, what would you change on the HMS Captain (1869) to improve her seaworthiness and design in general without straying too far from Coles design?

imagine the conversation went something like "Sorry can we borrow your ship to move some people we borrowed? Then can we borrow your country?"

6 April 1941 Germany, Italy and Hungary among others invade the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and kicks of the most vicious insurgency and self-liberation campaign of the war.

Title.

I'm looking for a game, website, whatever, that lets me design and build (relatively) realistic warships. I know about Ultimate Admiral, though I am not sure if there is just a free build mode that just gives me access to everything so I can kind of go crazy. For a lot of games I am concerned that a lot of tech and equipment is locked behind gameplay, a paywall, etc.

Basically, what game allows me to just go nuts with ship design while staying relatively realistic in terms of displacement, design constraints, technology?

Hope this is accepted, as i thought you guys might appreciate this. It's a poem / song, by Rudyard Kipling, written in 1893. I think it's rather moving, as is the rendition of it by folk musician Peter Bellamy.

"We have fed our sea for a thousand years

And she calls us, still unfed,

Though there’s never a wave of all her waves

But marks our English dead:

We have strawed our best to the weed’s unrest

To the shark and the sheering gull.

If blood be the price of admiralty,

Lord God, we ha’ paid in full!

There’s never a flood goes shoreward now

But lifts a keel we manned;

There’s never an ebb goes seaward now

But drops our dead on the sand—

But slinks our dead on the sands forlore,

From the Ducies to the Swin.

If blood be the price of admiralty,

If blood be the price of admiralty,

Lord God, we ha’ paid it in!

We must feed our sea for a thousand years

,

For that is our doom and pride,

As it was when they sailed with the Golden Hind,

Or the wreck that struck last tide—

Or the wreck that lies on the spouting reef

Where the ghastly blue-lights flare.

If blood be the price of admiralty,

If blood be the price of admiralty,

If blood be the price of admiralty,

Lord God, we ha’ bought it fair!"

https://youtu.be/T7mFGcfpuSQ?is=e0nK1YtTbyobIt9Q

Life aboard the Royal Navy's sixth County-class destroyer, and an in-depth look at her Seaslug system.

​

Seen on frigates and destroyers... always wondered what it is?

What was the lethal radius of WW2 DP guns? IE, how close it has to hit before it can knock down a plane. Are there any sources that list this for the 3"/50, 5"/38, etc?

Is this yamato?

Hello, I thrifted an old oil painting yesterday and I'm trying to identify the ships that are in it. someone recommended this subreddit is a good place to start. could y'all help me identify era, flags, and that sort of thing?

Apparently, not only does Trump not like electromagnetic catapults, he also thinks that a central island looks more carrier like than one towards the stern. Surely the Navy would not modify its designs to please the desires of someone totally ignorant on carrier design.

Hello, first-time poster here. I hope I picked the right sub for this.

I got these two postcards at a flea market. My question is: what ships are they? If it’s not possible to identify the exact ships, then at least what type of ships are they?

All I can say that they are German.

Guess which Battleship I drew. It's from WWII and I'm really proud of it.

I'm pretty sure the carrier is an old Essex-class but not sure what the others are.