As naval observers and analysts, we need a solid groundingin naval history. The Navy is currentlyin the process of designing and building an ?ASW? frigate, the Constellationclass. Functionally, the WWII analog tothe Constellation would be the Buckley class destroyer escort (DE), the iconicDE of WWII. Let’s refresh our memoryabout the Buckley class DE and see how it compares to the Constellation.
The Buckley was an ocean going, anti-submarine (ASW)vessel. As such, it was optimized forASW and, more importantly, minimized for ASW.Huh? Minimized for ASW? Yes! Thisis another way of saying that it had a single, primary purpose as opposed tobeing a multi-function design. It wasbuilt for ASW and nothing else (hence, the minimized statement!).
Here’s a brief comparison of the Buckley and theConstellation FFG.
| Buckley | Constellation | |
| Length, ft | 306 | 496 |
| Displacement, tons | 1740 | 7291 |
| Speed, kts | 26 | 26 |
| Range, nm | 5500 @ 15 kts | 6000 @ 16 kts |
 |
| USS Buckley |
Role - DE’s wereintended to be ocean-going ASW vessels, providing escort for convoys and actingas dedicated submarine hunters (often as part of escort carrier hunter-killergroups). Notably, they were not normallycarrier and battleship group escorts – that role being generally filled bydestroyers.
Constellation is, presumably, intended to be the Navy’s mainASW surface ship although the limited numbers render that intent nearlyirrelevant barring a massive wartime construction program. Unfortunately, the Constellation design alsoattempts to be an area anti-air warfare (AAW) ship with VLS, Standard SM-2 BlkIIIC missiles, and SPY-6 Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) and an ASuWship … in other words, it’s a do-everything, mini-Burke that is not specializedor optimized for anything.
Design Focus - Asmentioned, the DE was a very focused, limited design. Nothing was added to the design that was notabsolutely required for the role. One ofthe key aspects of the design was the recognition that the DE’s combat risk waslimited due to the role’s reduced likelihood of combat. The reduced combat risk allowed for reducedarmor, reduced armament, and reduced sensors.Contrast that with today’s attempts to include every capability, sensor,and weapon on every ship which, automatically, makes every ship over-spec’edand over-priced.
Numbers – Becausethe DE was a focused, limited design, they were cheap and several hundred werebuilt in WWII. Enemy submarines will goto great lengths to avoid detection (translate:mission kill) and the DE’s large numbers allowed them to be everywhereand hindered submarine operations by their mere presence as much or more thantheir actual combat actions. Incontrast, there are only 20 Constellations planned and they’re likely to cost$1B+. History suggests that even thismeager number of ships will be reduced.Twenty ships – if that – are not going to be much of a hindrance.
Range – It isnoteworthy that the Buckley is half the size of the Constellation and has thesame range. We’ve forgotten what we wereonce capable of designing in a ship!
Size – Buckley’s focusedand minimized design allowed a much smaller size; compare the Buckley to the Constellation’smuch greater size which equates to much greater relative cost for what ought tobe the same mission as Buckley.
Armament – Adirect comparison between the Buckley and Constellation is meaningless as theweapons are from different eras but it is interesting to note the weapondensity of the Buckley:
3x 3"/50 guns
1x Bofors twin 40 mm gun
8x 20 mm Oerlikon AA guns
1x Hedgehog, 24 round, 144 rounds total
200x depth charges in stern racks and eight K-gun depth charge throwers
3x 21-inch (533mm) torpedo tubes in a triple mount
While we can’t directly compare the weapons of the twoclasses, it is, as we said, worth noting the weapon density of the Buckley andthat density is hammered home by examining photos of the ship which showweapons mounted in almost every available space. WWII ship designers understood that numbersof weapons mattered and Buckley had every weapon it needed and in sufficientnumbers. In contrast, the Constellationlacks one of the main ASW weapons, the VL-ASROC, and has only a single close inweapon, the RAM, with only 21 rounds per use.The Buckley’s 3x 3”/50 guns (76 mm) put the Constellation’s single 57 mmgun armament to shame.
Conclusion
The Buckley class had the same speed, range, and role as theConstellation but was half the size, or less.What’s wrong with this picture?
What’s wrong is that the Constellation is unfocused and,therefore, large and expensive (only building 20!). Yeah, but it can fill multiple roles! No, not really. The area AAW role, for example, will befilled by the Burkes, not the Constellations so what’s the point of giving theman area AAW role? It just increases thesize, complexity, and cost of the Constellation.
The Buckley was an example of a focused design that wasoptimized for its intended role of ASW and, as a result, was cheap enough torisk in battle and cheap enough to procure in large numbers. In short, the Buckley was an excellentexample of intelligent naval force structure design. It was everything it needed to be and nothingit didn’t. We would do well to take thatlesson to heart.
