GUNS GUNS GUNS - Ships of the US Navy
Posted: 2009-01-01 07:29pm
Okay, so here's the general premise. Stalin didn't have that little stroke in 1953; rather, he lives another ten years or so. By this time, his somewhat inexplicable passion for a sizable surface fleet has resulted in a good number of Sverdlov cruisers Stalingrad battlecruisers. These had some gun armament removed and replaced with P-15 Termit as soon as these became available, and Stalin unveiled his new toys in a very public world cruise in early 1958, echoing the Great White Fleet of T. Roosevelt.
It was judged by many in the US Navy that large guns remained worthwhile as a deterrent to these ships, which would be able to defend amphibious ships and carriers, and allow the latter to more easily fulfill their nuclear deterrence role. However, many US gun cruisers had been scrapped, paid off, or converted to guided missile cruisers before the magnitude of the threat was known. Long Beach had just been laid down, and was modified to incorporate a surplus triple 6" turret, this to be replaced with a twin 8" turret of new design as soon as such was available.
The long-range gun duel with nuclear shells was destined never to take place. However, like their aircraft guns before them, the 8" were just too stubborn to die. The twin guns remain a fixture of US cruisers into the present day. As guided missiles fully replaced large guns in the surface action role, the 8"/55RF Mark 16 was proving its worth in shore bombardment off the coast of North Vietnam. As that conflict wound down, Congress became infatuated with the idea of amphibious landings on contested beaches. As that went the way of the dodo, electronics were shrinking to the point that subcaliber guided munitions could put explosive on target from far beyond the horizon. The 8" shell will never be a Tomahawk, but the paltry per-round cost keeps the Navy coming back, generation after generation.
Shown below is the majority of the US surface fleet circa 1998. With last year's fall of the Soviet Union, many of these ships are probably not going to be plying the waves much longer. Note that, fortuitously, Standard-MR and -ER proved to be drop-in replacements for Tartar and Terrier, respectively.
Cruisers of the United States Navy
Long Beach
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... gbeach.png
Long Beach and her three sisters remain the largest surface ships commissioned in the western world postwar. Built with an expedient 6"/47DP Mark 16 triple turret from recently-decommissioned Cleveland, she carried the heaviest missile loadout of any new-build cruiser. 46 Talos were fired from a Mark 12 launcher aft, 80 Terriers fed the Mark 10 launcher forward, and a forty-round Mark 11 Tartar launcher was mounted on each beam. This gave Long Beach the unprecedented total of 206 surface-to-air missiles, a total unequaled before the RAM/Kashtan era, and gave her the unique distinction of being the only class to carry the entire 3-T system. The aforementioned triple 6" turret was mounted in A position, and an eight-round ASROC launcher was mounted amidships. The 6" mount remained in service rather longer than was intended; in fact, all six ships of the class were commissioned with the smaller forward turret. The twin 8"/55RF was finally ready in time for the first of the abortive Belknap class in the late 1960s. Long Beach, like all other US cruisers, was designed for the carriage and use of special ammunition for the 8" guns, although few of these rounds were probably carried after the mid 1960s.
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... achNTU.png
Shown here is the New Threat Upgrade of Long Beach and her sisters in the late 1970s. Her massive size made AEGIS a sensible fit, and the Mark 12 was found to accommodate the ancient but energetic Nike-Hercules. This made the NTU Long Beachs the only truly effective anti-ballistic missile platform in the fleet until the SM-3 entered service in the early 1990s. Standard-MR replaced Tartar, and Standard-ER replaced Terrier.
Belknap
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... elknap.png
Long Beach was shockingly capable, but the promised economies of scale seemed likely never to appear with nuclear powerplants of the mid 1960s. Congress "encouraged" the Navy to find a different solution, and the result were the five Belknaps. Completed with the new twin 8"/55 and 120 Terriers and ASROC in dual Mark 10 launchers fore and aft, with an embarked helo and larger sonar, she appeared to give much of the capability of Long Beach without the terrifying cost. However, the Belknaps proved less than satisfactory in service. The US Navy of 1970 wanted to cruise fast and far, and the fossil-fueled cruiser simply did not fit in that equation. Belknap and her sisters were relegated to amphibious warfare support, their thirst sated by the 20-25kt cruising speed of modern phibrons.
Truxtun
http://s387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... ruxton.png
After the failed steam-cruiser experiment, the Navy returned to the nuclear cruiser, a system which now appears will last in perpetuity. Truxtun was almost exactly a Belknap with nuclear propulsion. The march of technology left the basic Belknap design somewhat outdated, however; only two vessels were completed.
California
http://s387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... fornia.png
The appearance of a fleet of Naval Aviation Backfires at May Day 1975 caused quite a stir in the public eye, but the US Navy had been aware of the growing threat for some time. Huge raidcounts now occupied everyone's nightmares, and the old twin-arm launchers were suddenly very much out of vogue. The Mark 13, and the modified bigger brother that armed California and her sisters, was the quick solution to the problem. While the "one-armed bandit" fired only one missile at a time, it could reload much more quickly than the older systems, and California was able to maintain a launch rate of 16 missiles per minute for the 10 minutes that her magazines lasted. Combined with the longer range of the new Standard-ER, a single cruiser could hold off quite a large air assault. Along with the new GMLS, a new 8" mount was shipped on California. The rate of fire was somewhat lower for the new twin turret, but it could be operated virtually unmanned and was both more reliable and lower in weight than the older system.
California was also built with a vertical hangar for a single helo. This proved highly unsatisfactory in service, and was replaced with a narrow fixed landing deck, flanked by fully three dozen Harpoons. The appropriation of traditionally battleship names to the new cruisers later seemed rather appropriate.
Virginia
http://s387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... nia_F1.png
The CGN reached apparent maturity with the numerous Virginia class, which is still in low-rate production. The new Mark 26 provided even higher rates of fire than the single-armed launchers, and the magazine structure was more flexible as well; Flight I ships, fully loaded, can carry up to 180 Standard-ER missiles. Harpoons and Tomahawks are shipped in quantity, and two LAMPS helos are carried in a hanger amidships.
http://s387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... nia_F2.png
Flight II Virginias abandoned the power-loaded launcher entirely, being the first US ships fitted with a vertical launch system. 160 strike-length cells are fitted, as well as 48 tactical cells, which are used exclusively for Standard-MR and, more recently, quadpack ESSM. In today's lower threat environment, this allows Flight II vessels to carry seemingly unlimited numbers of strike weapons, making the proponents of the so-called "Arsenal Ship" feel very silly indeed.
There are no public plans for the class that will eventually replace the Virginias and their many older half-siblings.
Destroyers of the United States Navy
Destroyers are very much the backbone of the modern US Navy. They maintain much of the capability of a cruiser, but do so at a much lower cost. No carrier group would be seen without a cruiser or two in case a long speed run is needed, but destroyers provide the depth of defense in the modern fleet. They serve where the nuclear power and big guns of a cruiser are not required, escorting merchant and unchallenged amphibious groups, and are also tasked with solo subhunting.
Charles F. Adams
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... Fadams.png
Charles F. Adams was the first purpose-build guided missile ship in the US Navy. Adapted from the Forrest Sherman design, the Adams boats were capable but were quickly superseded by more advanced designs. Adams unfortunately retains her gun-destroyer heritage. A-mount is too far forward to be servicable in heavy seas, which is acceptable on a three-mount ship but is a serious deficiency on a vessel with only a single gun. Likewise, the center gun position proved too small to adequately support the full-size ASROC launcher, and a four-round lightweight launcher was substituted (this is not a critical deficiency, since the sonar fit is austere at best). The 40-round Mark 10 Terrier launcher fires aft, giving the ships of the class a very defensive feel. A helo can be accommodated, but is not shipped due to the lack of hangar.
Leahy
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... _leahy.png
The ships of the Leahy class followed soon after Charles F. Adams and her sisters, but were eminently more workable in service. A much larger sonar was fitted. The single gun was moved right aft, making it much more workable in a seaway. The Mark 10 Terrier launcher was moved to the bow, still with two 20-round magazine rings. A 12-round Tartar box was mounted above the single hangar, making Leahy the first 360deg AAW vessel of her size. The lightweight ASROC launcher from Adams was retained, but ASROC rapidly fell from the forefront as ASW helo operations became commonplace.
Spruance
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... prucan.png
Leahy was a functional vessel indeed, but few anticipated that it would be ten years before the commissioning of a new destroyer of the US Navy. Fortunately, the Spruance design was up to the task of a wholesale replacement of the US Navy's destroyer squadrons. While AAW work was gaining influence in cruiser circles, the Navy felt that the anti-submarine capabilities of the fleet left much to be desired. Spruance was therefore designed first and foremost as an ASW boat. Two LAMPs helos are embarked in a large hangar, and a full 8-round ASROC launcher is mounted forward. Unlike typical US Navy practice, a sizable number of ASROC reloads are stored below the launcher. Harpoons and the new twin-gun 5"/54 Mark 66 are carried for surface warfare work, although these are very much an afterthought. Likewise, the single Mark 13 launcher aft is tasked with point defense only, carrying too few missiles with too little range to be a true area-defense platform. Spruance ships soldier on today, and they seem likely to be with us for the foreseeable future.
Kidd
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... s_kidd.png
The adaptability of the basic Spruance design showed clearly in the Kidd AAW destroyers designed for the Shah of Iran. Only minimal changes were required to replace the ASROC and Mark 13 launchers with twin Mark 26, one able to fire the full-booster Standard-ER missile. 120 missiles are carried, not including the eight Harpoons right aft. The US Navy prefers the Ticonderoga, but the accidental castaways from the Iranian revolution are still useful workhorses.
Ticonderoga
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... DGtico.png
With the Ticonderoga destroyers, AEGIS appeared in the destroyer fleet, as did VLS. As such, the "Ticos" can very much be considered little conventionally-powered sisters of the Flight II Virginias. They ship only the twin 5"/54, and certainly carry fewer missiles, but they are equally capable in many roles and cost much less. Like the Kidds, Ticonderoga is built on a Spruance hull. This has begun to show its age, however, and the Ticonderoga has been replaced in production by the Arliegh Burke class.
Arleigh Burke
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... burkle.png
Like Virginia on the cruiser side, one gets a feeling of maturity from the design of the Burkes. They carry essentially the same electronics and weapons fit as a Ticonderoga, but they do so on a smaller, beamier, somewhat more stable hull designed with computational methods unavailable in decades past. They are also the first US Navy ship to be designed with a mind towards low-observable characteristics; note the substantial use of inward-sloping exterior bulkheads. The so-called BURKESWARM now fills the "low" portion of the naval mix, complemented by Virginia on the high end. Burke is well suited for this role, as it preserves the capabilities of the Ticos but costs rather less.
Frigates of the United States Navy
Modern frigates are the very low end of the modern fleet. While sometimes mocked as "missile sponges", their captains derided as COMSUBBAIT, they are a valuable part of the fleet. Soviet fleet elements are unlikely to challenge shipping near the Canal Zone, for instance, but some level of preparation and vigilance is always necessary. Frigates are also used to "fly the flag" in less developed regions of the world, and are often Uncle Sam's watchful eye on a nearby low-intensity conflict.
Knox
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... s_knox.png
Knox began life as a troubled ship. Abortive cost-cutting measures resulted in a single screw being initially specified, and when a reversion to twin screws was ordered, there were many persistent bugs in the design. Looking back, particularly after experience with the Perrys, the fleet might have been better off stressing reliability over survivability, but Knox eventually became a valuable asset. She has the ASW capability of many larger ships, with a full 8-round ASROC and a single helo with hangar. The Mark 42 is wet forward, and the 12-round Tartar (now Standard-MR) box aft is of limited use against the feared Backfire swarm. However, limited capability is rather the point of a frigate, and taxpayers would rightfully balk at the cost required for dozens of hypothetical nuclear AEGIS frigates.
Hanson
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... hanson.png
The Hanson class was an attempt to give the Knox hull somewhat more staying power on the modern battlefield. Only a lightweight ASROC launcher is fitted, although this is considered acceptable in light of the reduced role of ASROC in the modern helo-centric ASW environment. A full 42-round Mark 12 Tartar (later Standard-MR) launcher is fitted, giving the Hansons much more capability against low-intensity long-duration threats. A Chapparal launcher is fitted above the hangar, giving 360deg coverage, although one must suspect that the system was unpopular since it has not appeared on later vessels. Chapparal has since been replaced with Phalanx on the units still in service. Something had to give, of course, to gain the much-increased AAW capability; the modern high-performance 5"/54 Mark 42 of the Knox gave way to a surplus 5"/38 Mark 30. This weapon has some marginal capability against surface threats, but has much less utility for long-range shore bombardment than the 54 caliber high-rate-of-fire weapon. Anti-air effectiveness is best left to the imagination; the 5"/38 was a highly effective AAW weapon against the dreaded Zero.
Oliver Hazard Perry
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... _perry.png
With the Perry class, the frigate arm of the US Navy has entered a more modern era. The class has only a single screw, but said screw is powered by gas turbines that are much less temperamental than the pressure-fired boilers of Knox and Hanson. The Mark 13 launcher forward carries the same number of missiles as the Hansons, but the rate of fire is much improved. A modern 5"/54 Mark 45 has somewhat less performance than the Mark 42 in ideal conditions, but is worlds better than the 5"/38. Phalanx has been fitted from the beginning, and Perry carries two helos instead of the single helo of her predecessors. Notably, no ASROC is fitted. The initial Perry design broke many naval traditions, and the amidships 76mm was mocked by many; however, what seemed a crazy boat on paper has become the mainstay of the frigate fleet.
It was judged by many in the US Navy that large guns remained worthwhile as a deterrent to these ships, which would be able to defend amphibious ships and carriers, and allow the latter to more easily fulfill their nuclear deterrence role. However, many US gun cruisers had been scrapped, paid off, or converted to guided missile cruisers before the magnitude of the threat was known. Long Beach had just been laid down, and was modified to incorporate a surplus triple 6" turret, this to be replaced with a twin 8" turret of new design as soon as such was available.
The long-range gun duel with nuclear shells was destined never to take place. However, like their aircraft guns before them, the 8" were just too stubborn to die. The twin guns remain a fixture of US cruisers into the present day. As guided missiles fully replaced large guns in the surface action role, the 8"/55RF Mark 16 was proving its worth in shore bombardment off the coast of North Vietnam. As that conflict wound down, Congress became infatuated with the idea of amphibious landings on contested beaches. As that went the way of the dodo, electronics were shrinking to the point that subcaliber guided munitions could put explosive on target from far beyond the horizon. The 8" shell will never be a Tomahawk, but the paltry per-round cost keeps the Navy coming back, generation after generation.
Shown below is the majority of the US surface fleet circa 1998. With last year's fall of the Soviet Union, many of these ships are probably not going to be plying the waves much longer. Note that, fortuitously, Standard-MR and -ER proved to be drop-in replacements for Tartar and Terrier, respectively.
Cruisers of the United States Navy
Long Beach
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... gbeach.png
Long Beach and her three sisters remain the largest surface ships commissioned in the western world postwar. Built with an expedient 6"/47DP Mark 16 triple turret from recently-decommissioned Cleveland, she carried the heaviest missile loadout of any new-build cruiser. 46 Talos were fired from a Mark 12 launcher aft, 80 Terriers fed the Mark 10 launcher forward, and a forty-round Mark 11 Tartar launcher was mounted on each beam. This gave Long Beach the unprecedented total of 206 surface-to-air missiles, a total unequaled before the RAM/Kashtan era, and gave her the unique distinction of being the only class to carry the entire 3-T system. The aforementioned triple 6" turret was mounted in A position, and an eight-round ASROC launcher was mounted amidships. The 6" mount remained in service rather longer than was intended; in fact, all six ships of the class were commissioned with the smaller forward turret. The twin 8"/55RF was finally ready in time for the first of the abortive Belknap class in the late 1960s. Long Beach, like all other US cruisers, was designed for the carriage and use of special ammunition for the 8" guns, although few of these rounds were probably carried after the mid 1960s.
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... achNTU.png
Shown here is the New Threat Upgrade of Long Beach and her sisters in the late 1970s. Her massive size made AEGIS a sensible fit, and the Mark 12 was found to accommodate the ancient but energetic Nike-Hercules. This made the NTU Long Beachs the only truly effective anti-ballistic missile platform in the fleet until the SM-3 entered service in the early 1990s. Standard-MR replaced Tartar, and Standard-ER replaced Terrier.
Belknap
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... elknap.png
Long Beach was shockingly capable, but the promised economies of scale seemed likely never to appear with nuclear powerplants of the mid 1960s. Congress "encouraged" the Navy to find a different solution, and the result were the five Belknaps. Completed with the new twin 8"/55 and 120 Terriers and ASROC in dual Mark 10 launchers fore and aft, with an embarked helo and larger sonar, she appeared to give much of the capability of Long Beach without the terrifying cost. However, the Belknaps proved less than satisfactory in service. The US Navy of 1970 wanted to cruise fast and far, and the fossil-fueled cruiser simply did not fit in that equation. Belknap and her sisters were relegated to amphibious warfare support, their thirst sated by the 20-25kt cruising speed of modern phibrons.
Truxtun
http://s387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... ruxton.png
After the failed steam-cruiser experiment, the Navy returned to the nuclear cruiser, a system which now appears will last in perpetuity. Truxtun was almost exactly a Belknap with nuclear propulsion. The march of technology left the basic Belknap design somewhat outdated, however; only two vessels were completed.
California
http://s387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... fornia.png
The appearance of a fleet of Naval Aviation Backfires at May Day 1975 caused quite a stir in the public eye, but the US Navy had been aware of the growing threat for some time. Huge raidcounts now occupied everyone's nightmares, and the old twin-arm launchers were suddenly very much out of vogue. The Mark 13, and the modified bigger brother that armed California and her sisters, was the quick solution to the problem. While the "one-armed bandit" fired only one missile at a time, it could reload much more quickly than the older systems, and California was able to maintain a launch rate of 16 missiles per minute for the 10 minutes that her magazines lasted. Combined with the longer range of the new Standard-ER, a single cruiser could hold off quite a large air assault. Along with the new GMLS, a new 8" mount was shipped on California. The rate of fire was somewhat lower for the new twin turret, but it could be operated virtually unmanned and was both more reliable and lower in weight than the older system.
California was also built with a vertical hangar for a single helo. This proved highly unsatisfactory in service, and was replaced with a narrow fixed landing deck, flanked by fully three dozen Harpoons. The appropriation of traditionally battleship names to the new cruisers later seemed rather appropriate.
Virginia
http://s387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... nia_F1.png
The CGN reached apparent maturity with the numerous Virginia class, which is still in low-rate production. The new Mark 26 provided even higher rates of fire than the single-armed launchers, and the magazine structure was more flexible as well; Flight I ships, fully loaded, can carry up to 180 Standard-ER missiles. Harpoons and Tomahawks are shipped in quantity, and two LAMPS helos are carried in a hanger amidships.
http://s387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... nia_F2.png
Flight II Virginias abandoned the power-loaded launcher entirely, being the first US ships fitted with a vertical launch system. 160 strike-length cells are fitted, as well as 48 tactical cells, which are used exclusively for Standard-MR and, more recently, quadpack ESSM. In today's lower threat environment, this allows Flight II vessels to carry seemingly unlimited numbers of strike weapons, making the proponents of the so-called "Arsenal Ship" feel very silly indeed.
There are no public plans for the class that will eventually replace the Virginias and their many older half-siblings.
Destroyers of the United States Navy
Destroyers are very much the backbone of the modern US Navy. They maintain much of the capability of a cruiser, but do so at a much lower cost. No carrier group would be seen without a cruiser or two in case a long speed run is needed, but destroyers provide the depth of defense in the modern fleet. They serve where the nuclear power and big guns of a cruiser are not required, escorting merchant and unchallenged amphibious groups, and are also tasked with solo subhunting.
Charles F. Adams
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... Fadams.png
Charles F. Adams was the first purpose-build guided missile ship in the US Navy. Adapted from the Forrest Sherman design, the Adams boats were capable but were quickly superseded by more advanced designs. Adams unfortunately retains her gun-destroyer heritage. A-mount is too far forward to be servicable in heavy seas, which is acceptable on a three-mount ship but is a serious deficiency on a vessel with only a single gun. Likewise, the center gun position proved too small to adequately support the full-size ASROC launcher, and a four-round lightweight launcher was substituted (this is not a critical deficiency, since the sonar fit is austere at best). The 40-round Mark 10 Terrier launcher fires aft, giving the ships of the class a very defensive feel. A helo can be accommodated, but is not shipped due to the lack of hangar.
Leahy
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... _leahy.png
The ships of the Leahy class followed soon after Charles F. Adams and her sisters, but were eminently more workable in service. A much larger sonar was fitted. The single gun was moved right aft, making it much more workable in a seaway. The Mark 10 Terrier launcher was moved to the bow, still with two 20-round magazine rings. A 12-round Tartar box was mounted above the single hangar, making Leahy the first 360deg AAW vessel of her size. The lightweight ASROC launcher from Adams was retained, but ASROC rapidly fell from the forefront as ASW helo operations became commonplace.
Spruance
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... prucan.png
Leahy was a functional vessel indeed, but few anticipated that it would be ten years before the commissioning of a new destroyer of the US Navy. Fortunately, the Spruance design was up to the task of a wholesale replacement of the US Navy's destroyer squadrons. While AAW work was gaining influence in cruiser circles, the Navy felt that the anti-submarine capabilities of the fleet left much to be desired. Spruance was therefore designed first and foremost as an ASW boat. Two LAMPs helos are embarked in a large hangar, and a full 8-round ASROC launcher is mounted forward. Unlike typical US Navy practice, a sizable number of ASROC reloads are stored below the launcher. Harpoons and the new twin-gun 5"/54 Mark 66 are carried for surface warfare work, although these are very much an afterthought. Likewise, the single Mark 13 launcher aft is tasked with point defense only, carrying too few missiles with too little range to be a true area-defense platform. Spruance ships soldier on today, and they seem likely to be with us for the foreseeable future.
Kidd
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... s_kidd.png
The adaptability of the basic Spruance design showed clearly in the Kidd AAW destroyers designed for the Shah of Iran. Only minimal changes were required to replace the ASROC and Mark 13 launchers with twin Mark 26, one able to fire the full-booster Standard-ER missile. 120 missiles are carried, not including the eight Harpoons right aft. The US Navy prefers the Ticonderoga, but the accidental castaways from the Iranian revolution are still useful workhorses.
Ticonderoga
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... DGtico.png
With the Ticonderoga destroyers, AEGIS appeared in the destroyer fleet, as did VLS. As such, the "Ticos" can very much be considered little conventionally-powered sisters of the Flight II Virginias. They ship only the twin 5"/54, and certainly carry fewer missiles, but they are equally capable in many roles and cost much less. Like the Kidds, Ticonderoga is built on a Spruance hull. This has begun to show its age, however, and the Ticonderoga has been replaced in production by the Arliegh Burke class.
Arleigh Burke
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... burkle.png
Like Virginia on the cruiser side, one gets a feeling of maturity from the design of the Burkes. They carry essentially the same electronics and weapons fit as a Ticonderoga, but they do so on a smaller, beamier, somewhat more stable hull designed with computational methods unavailable in decades past. They are also the first US Navy ship to be designed with a mind towards low-observable characteristics; note the substantial use of inward-sloping exterior bulkheads. The so-called BURKESWARM now fills the "low" portion of the naval mix, complemented by Virginia on the high end. Burke is well suited for this role, as it preserves the capabilities of the Ticos but costs rather less.
Frigates of the United States Navy
Modern frigates are the very low end of the modern fleet. While sometimes mocked as "missile sponges", their captains derided as COMSUBBAIT, they are a valuable part of the fleet. Soviet fleet elements are unlikely to challenge shipping near the Canal Zone, for instance, but some level of preparation and vigilance is always necessary. Frigates are also used to "fly the flag" in less developed regions of the world, and are often Uncle Sam's watchful eye on a nearby low-intensity conflict.
Knox
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... s_knox.png
Knox began life as a troubled ship. Abortive cost-cutting measures resulted in a single screw being initially specified, and when a reversion to twin screws was ordered, there were many persistent bugs in the design. Looking back, particularly after experience with the Perrys, the fleet might have been better off stressing reliability over survivability, but Knox eventually became a valuable asset. She has the ASW capability of many larger ships, with a full 8-round ASROC and a single helo with hangar. The Mark 42 is wet forward, and the 12-round Tartar (now Standard-MR) box aft is of limited use against the feared Backfire swarm. However, limited capability is rather the point of a frigate, and taxpayers would rightfully balk at the cost required for dozens of hypothetical nuclear AEGIS frigates.
Hanson
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... hanson.png
The Hanson class was an attempt to give the Knox hull somewhat more staying power on the modern battlefield. Only a lightweight ASROC launcher is fitted, although this is considered acceptable in light of the reduced role of ASROC in the modern helo-centric ASW environment. A full 42-round Mark 12 Tartar (later Standard-MR) launcher is fitted, giving the Hansons much more capability against low-intensity long-duration threats. A Chapparal launcher is fitted above the hangar, giving 360deg coverage, although one must suspect that the system was unpopular since it has not appeared on later vessels. Chapparal has since been replaced with Phalanx on the units still in service. Something had to give, of course, to gain the much-increased AAW capability; the modern high-performance 5"/54 Mark 42 of the Knox gave way to a surplus 5"/38 Mark 30. This weapon has some marginal capability against surface threats, but has much less utility for long-range shore bombardment than the 54 caliber high-rate-of-fire weapon. Anti-air effectiveness is best left to the imagination; the 5"/38 was a highly effective AAW weapon against the dreaded Zero.
Oliver Hazard Perry
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... _perry.png
With the Perry class, the frigate arm of the US Navy has entered a more modern era. The class has only a single screw, but said screw is powered by gas turbines that are much less temperamental than the pressure-fired boilers of Knox and Hanson. The Mark 13 launcher forward carries the same number of missiles as the Hansons, but the rate of fire is much improved. A modern 5"/54 Mark 45 has somewhat less performance than the Mark 42 in ideal conditions, but is worlds better than the 5"/38. Phalanx has been fitted from the beginning, and Perry carries two helos instead of the single helo of her predecessors. Notably, no ASROC is fitted. The initial Perry design broke many naval traditions, and the amidships 76mm was mocked by many; however, what seemed a crazy boat on paper has become the mainstay of the frigate fleet.
