Fuck Italy and that bullshit-

The USCGs new fleet is in service and or under construction.

What should have happened was an adaptation of the WMSL class. Get rid of the stupid stern small boat ramp, give it some more pews and have a more adaptable and interchangeable fleet. It's a proven design with 13 years in service.

Would have been my choice as well, but they didn't ask me.  Not that there's anything wrong with the Italian candidate...

Also, the gun will be called the Mk 75 76mm/62 cal (NOT-to-be-called Oto Melara) gun mount. (It was a "thing" on the FFG-7s, although MY gun was a gen-u-ine made in Italy Oto Melara).

Oh yeah...  PEO Ships will fuck it up by the numbers, and we'll end up only buying four because they're so damned expensive.

Would be better if it was built in Bath or Pascagoula.  Bath does particularly good work on surface ships.

I hope the Navy remembers  to put old mooring lines down in the ejection area to keep the bos’ns happy.  I hear those ejected shells are hard on no skid!

Attached File

Also suicide at times

Look at Teseo Tesei at Malta in WWII

Yes.. redundant bourocracy and crappy leadership at the highest levels. At the time of world war II there was also a Major gap with other superpowers as far as industrial development of the country

I do think that a sloop design that can be used as a frigate/escort when needed, like the Absalon-class (some of the Damen Crossover XO designs are in the same vein) is a better fit for the Navy than a pure frigate design.

These frigates are pretty nice, though.  I do like the "Improved Bergamini" configuration the best (although a U.S. version would use Mk41 VLS and different canister launchers for missiles, obviously).  Has both a 5" and 3" gun (with ER rounds for the 5"), a couple of 40mm AA guns, a couple of 25mm guns, space amidships for two canister launchers for anti-ship missiles, 2 light ASW torpedo banks (triple), 2 helicopters, 2 launchers for decoy and bombardment rockets, and a 32-cell VLS (Sylver in this case) with the length to launch cruise missiles.  The standard Bergamini (which is the Italian general-purpose variant) has two SLAT torpedo decoy launchers instead of the 40mm guns, and 16 VLS cells with space reserved for another 16 if desired in the future.

What is boppity boopi?

The Italians use them as CIWS guns.  Their non-VLS destroyer class has three for this purpose, in addition to the 5" gun.

Italian and french FREMM's are more different than you could think and the frigate adopted by the US navy is much more similari to the italian version of the FREMM

Absalon class is Danish.

And you were in the wrong part of Italy, my friend.

It’s simple, the US Navy is broken and has no leadership.  When we tried to build a destroyer sized ship we wound up with 32 LCSs, the fist 4 of which have been retired without ever completing a deployment.  The US does not have a destroyer sized ship in its fleet.  What we call destroyers are actually the size of traditional cruisers, but without armor.

Well LCS doesn't have a flight deck and squadron of F/A-18s either. Because that isn't the mission.

Don't worry, I'm sure NAVSEA will fix that with some Gen-you-wine mission creep.

FREMMs are good ships. I wonder what the Navy is putting in there electronics-wise. I'm more preferential to the Type 26 CSC that the Canandians are getting. They have a entire electronics suite that would whip the shit out of our Flight III Burkes.

Danish, Dutch, Deutsch, what difference does it make?

Those are nice.  Rapid-firing, more like the Mk42 with its ROF, instead of slow-firing (for an automatic gun) like the Mk45, and it has actual ER round available for it.  Compatible with all USN 5" projectiles as well.

There was a time when that's what everyone thought, and many designs of escorts were getting no more than a couple of minor-caliber guns.  Conflicts during the 1980s changed that line of thought, as I recall, and you saw medium-caliber guns pop up on those types of ships again.

They haven't been retired yet. They have completed deployments. In regards to the first four.

Cruisers and destroyers were traditionally defined by mission and armament, not size.  Some cruisers were quite small and also lacked much armor.  Others were basically as large as battleships.  Destroyer, frigate, and corvette designs have all been growing in size to accommodate modern weapons systems, sensors, and such, which can be very space-intensive, but they are still essentially escort designs.

The Ticonderogas are built on a destroyer hull and were originally rated as destroyers and with their flag facilities are the equivalent of destroyer leaders, but were called cruisers due to Cold War era political concerns (which is also why most of the DLGs were re-rated as cruisers).  Zumwalts were designed for what amounts to a cruiser mission, but due to legislation from Congress about cruisers, got called destroyers, instead.  The USN has kinda messed up its nomenclature (then you have the LCS, which is a glorified modular corvette, with issues in making it actually be modular in practice).

They're full to my understanding.

Experts.

Firstly, Danes aren’t people. They don’t feel pain like you or I.

At this point the only real distinction is between Large Escort (Cruiser), Medium Escort (Destroyer) and Small Escort (Frigate).  The current situation is driven by the computer revolution which makes everything essentially multi-role.  It's not really a bad system.  After all, the terms have been evolving since the Age of Sail.

Age of Sail: Frigates were the more modern subset of cruisers, as opposed to the old Two-Deckers.  Cruisers were ships designed for convoy support, commerce raiding, and pirate suppression but were too small to stand in the line of battle.  A Frigate was a particular type of sailing ship being ship-rigged, with a full gun deck and additional guns on the forecastle and quarterdeck, generally 28 guns or larger, and usually employed as a cruiser.  

Age of Steam: Frigate was eventually dropped because it was confusing.  With steam there was no longer the rigging which defined it, and with larger and heavier guns even line of battle ships often only had a single gun deck.  You basically had battleships, cruisers, and intermediaries like armored cruiser and battlecruiser.  

WWI-ish: With the invention of torpedoes and torpedo boats came the need for torpedo boat destroyers.  Since early submarines were basically submersible torpedo boats, destroyers got those as well, along with the shortened name.

WWII: With the U-boat campaign there was a need for escorts smaller than destroyers, and lots of them.  A wide ranges of sizes and names were invented, including a bunch from old sailing ships.  So you get sloops, corvettes, frigates, destroyer escorts, etc.  Post-war, navies generally settle on two sizes and names, corvettes and frigates.

Cold War: Missiles and air defense become a thing, and generally cruisers get the big, sophisticated AA missiles systems.  Frigates are generally pure escorts.  Destroyers are principally escorts but as technology improves they get a bit more mutli-role.  

Computer Age: As computers get smaller, it makes sense to make everything a bit more muti-role.  Cruiser, Destroyer, and Frigate really only differ in size.  The line gets blurred further as cost-conscious navies fudge the definitions so you get destroyer-like frigates like the Sachsens and cruiser-like destroyers like the Burkes.    

Dude that's hilarious.