FFG(X)

[Cordy]

Surface navy emphasizes frigates in its latest modernization plans

The director of surface warfare provides his vision for modernization over the next 15 years.

www.defensenews.com

Re. above Rear Adm. Fred Pyle, Director of Surface Warfare, N96, told Megan Eckstein Defense News on Dec. 7 re the Navy classified June 2023 Battle Force Ship Assessment and Requirement study he noted his main takeaway from the study is “the value of having numbers for small surface combatants.” “We want to build a lot of frigates and [have] somewhat smaller, very capable ships being proliferated out through the fleet ”. Navy spokesman David Clark said the study called for a 381 ship fleet.

One implication is that maybe the Navy thinking of a new smaller frigate at say approx half the cost of the $1 billion Constellation though think would be a very hard sell to Congress after the unmitigated disaster of the LCS program.

Re. the 2032 DDG(X) noted the importance will be its ability to remain on station longer and require less help from fleet tankers and other logistics ships, by implication a major critique of the short range of the Burkes (~3,000 nm allowing for minimum requirement of one third operational reserves) with their all gas guzzling GT propulsion system, no doubt thrown into focus by the force ship assessment study for the range required for ships operating in the 63 million square miles of the Pacific Ocean.

Asked whether the study called for more frigates generally, or more frigates at the expense of larger Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, Pyle made a non-committal comment that the Navy has “that constant challenge of trying to balance” the portfolio to fit the budget.

 

[TomS]

One implication is that maybe the Navy thinking of a new smaller frigate at say approx half the cost of the $1 billion Constellation though think would be a very hard sell to Congress after the unmitigated disaster of the LCS program.

Where does this idea come from? He's clearly talking about FFG-61 compared to the DDG-51 Flight III. Zero chance of interest in another even smaller manned combatant (maybe unmanned, though).

This might not bode well for DDG(X).

 

[Moose]

DDG(X) (or some LSC) is going to happen for many reasons, but it seems locked onto a CG-47 trajectory of fairly limited numbers. All the more odd they aren't just going full Cruiser with it.

The talk of a second Frigate yard remains healthy in volume, but the Navy is doing a fantastic job of not actually talking about it in a substantive way.

 

[Josh_TN]

Where does this idea come from? He's clearly talking about FFG-61 compared to the DDG-51 Flight III. Zero chance of interest in another even smaller manned combatant (maybe unmanned, though).

This might not bode well for DDG(X).

There will still need to be an AMDR ship of some kind to follow the Burk IIIs, which have no weight, power, or cooling margins.

 

[TomS]

DDG(X) (or some LSC) is going to happen for many reasons, but it seems locked onto a CG-47 trajectory of fairly limited numbers. All the more odd they aren't just going full Cruiser with it.

The talk of a second Frigate yard remains healthy in volume, but the Navy is doing a fantastic job of not actually talking about it in a substantive way.

Really hope we do see a second yard but I'm not super-confident that there is a willingness to spend the money.

It would be nice to see DDG(X) became a cruiser. Not sure it would change the ship's actual capabilities much, but adding some more staff space would be very useful.

 

[Jimmo952]

Really hope we do see a second yard but I'm not super-confident that there is a willingness to spend the money.

It would be nice to see DDG(X) became a cruiser. Not sure it would change the ship's actual capabilities much, but adding some more staff space would be very useful.

In the present time, the money seems there.
We are more constrained by industrial capacity and knowing what we want.

Of course that can all charge in a heartbeat.

 

[Josh_TN]

Really hope we do see a second yard but I'm not super-confident that there is a willingness to spend the money.

It would be nice to see DDG(X) became a cruiser. Not sure it would change the ship's actual capabilities much, but adding some more staff space would be very useful.

I think there will be a willingness once a couple constellations are in the water and working well. LCS and Zoomie destroyed Congresses confidence in USN ship projects and it is going to take proof that the new ship works for them to loosen the purse strings. I think a second yard will be in the works by decades end as long as Connie isn’t yet another failure.

 

[Cordy]

Cordy said:
One implication is that maybe the Navy thinking of a new smaller frigate at say approx half the cost of the $1 billion Constellation though think would be a very hard sell to Congress after the unmitigated disaster of the LCS program.

Where does this idea come from? He's clearly talking about FFG-61 compared to the DDG-51 Flight III. Zero chance of interest in another even smaller manned combatant (maybe unmanned, though).

This might not bode well for DDG(X).

Simplistic back of envelope calcs
The Navy’s force structure study puts an even greater importance on small combatants and calls for a 381 ship fleet which Navy says is needed, so the question is how do you build up the fleet by an extra 80 or so ships from the current ~300 assuming no additional funding.

How can you fund the high numbers of frigates said to be operationally required unless they are more affordable than the $1 billion Constellation. If you were to cut back the Burke build rate from the current two per year to one you could fund an additional two Constellations per year for a net gain of one ship in the fleet per year, that would take ~ 80 years to hit the Navy 381 ship fleet.

PS Would think minimal chance Congress ever allow Burke build cut back unless BIW or Ingalls were given contract to build Constellations (at one time the build rate of the OHP 4,000t class frigates was 7 per year).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Cordy said:
One implication is that maybe the Navy thinking of a new smaller frigate at say approx half the cost of the $1 billion Constellation though think would be a very hard sell to Congress after the unmitigated disaster of the LCS program.


Simplistic back of envelope calcs
The Navy’s force structure study puts an even greater importance on small combatants and calls for a 381 ship fleet which Navy says is needed, so the question is how do you build up the fleet by an extra 80 or so ships from the current ~300 assuming no additional funding.

How can you fund the high numbers of frigates said to be operationally required unless they are more affordable than the $1 billion Constellation. If you were to cut back the Burke build rate from the current two per year to one you could fund an additional two Constellations per year for a net gain of one ship in the fleet per year, that would take ~ 80 years to hit the Navy 381 ship fleet.

PS Would think minimal chance Congress ever allow Burke build cut back unless BIW or Ingalls were given contract to build Constellations (at one time the build rate of the OHP 4,000t class frigates was 7 per year).

I don't see how you get a sufficiently capable ship to be worth fielding at $500mil.

 

[Cordy]

I don't see how you get a sufficiently capable ship to be worth fielding at $500mil.

The Japanese 5,500t Mogami class frigates just under $500 million

 

[TomS]

I don't see how you get a sufficiently capable ship to be worth fielding at $500mil.

At best, for the USN, that kind of money buys a ship roughly comparable to the UK Type 31.

The US already has a force of patrol ships like that, they just belong to the USCG instead of the USN.

 

[TomS]

The Japanese 5,500t Mogami class frigates just under $500 million

You mean, the frigates with no VLS? And importantly, not built in US yards with their rather higher cost structures.

 

[yeetmahboi]

The Japanese 5,500t Mogami class frigates just under $500 million

Mogami also has far less than what half the FFG62' sensor could do. And a tiny fraction of the firepower.
Tbh at that price level you should be looking at a LCS replacement. A stretched Freedom-class with a buffed stern deck, Zumwalt-sized hangar and a large amidship recess for loading mission modules.
As higher lifetime cost is often associated with sensors and manning in modern military shipbuilding, a low-end vessel should aim for high autonomy, plug n play sensors/systems.

 

[Cordy]

Would note the Mogami class initially FFBNW Mk41 VLS cells but that changed in 2021 and they get two sets fitted, 16 cells, would also note fitted with Mk45 5" main gun not the 57mm pop gun and also a LWT launchers, again not included in the Constellation, so swings and roundabouts on the specs of both frigates, but think totally wrong to imply Mogami not a capable frigate.

Back to the question is how do you answer the Navy need to build up the operationally required fleet to 381 ships if insisting on expensive frigates that makes it impossible with the funding?

 

[Jimmo952]

There's a design challenge there. What can be built in US yards for roughly half the cost of a Constellation?

Obviously it would be smaller and more austere. The question is how much smaller and how much more austere?

 

[Firefinder]

There's a design challenge there. What can be built in US yards for roughly half the cost of a Constellation?

Obviously it would be smaller and more austere. The question is how much smaller and how much more austere?

You also got the added point of How Much More Austere can you go til you get tge LCS effect.

Aka seen as a failure, would die if a enemy farts in it general direction and multiple other issues that killed the Freedom and Independence classes in the court of public, read Congress, opinion. Cause the LCS is basically what the Mogamis are capability wise and well...

Both are decent ships but one has a far far worse reputation.

 

[Josh_TN]

You also got the added point of How Much More Austere can you go til you get tge LCS effect.

Aka seen as a failure, would die if a enemy farts in it general direction and multiple other issues that killed the Freedom and Independence classes in the court of public, read Congress, opinion. Cause the LCS is basically what the Mogamis are capability wise and well...

Both are decent ships but one has a far far worse reputation.

The LCS has had engineering issues that Morgan does not. Had the insane speed requirements been dropped from LCS perhaps it might have been mildly successful.

 

[Firefinder]

The LCS has had engineering issues that Morgan does not. Had the insane speed requirements been dropped from LCS perhaps it might have been mildly successful.

One of the two classes got Engining issues, the Freedom class, the Independence class been well outside of the old new ship issues all vessels have. With the Independences being welled like by its crews.

The biggest issue with LCS was from its Mission Mobules development budget being messed up 5 different ways every fiscal budget meeting. Not helped by the main combat one being heavily tied into the Army Future Combat system which got fully canceled.

Unless you lay the money out for the Mobules in a Bedrock not even Congress can touch it budget.

Any Small Mobule Base ship will be a complete repeat of the LCS.

Easiest way to get a small ship honest is basically figure out how to shove a CAMM module into the Independence class Forward Weapon bay and call it a day.

Cause a Mogami just going to be a repeat of of the Constellation class while adding nothing. While a Camm armed Independence can do all tge small short patrol work plus minesweeping duties that even a Constellation let alone the current Burke be overkill for.

 

[Josh_TN]

The ultra light ESSM launcher (mk48?) would be a much better fit than CAMM, but no one is spending the money.

I think the FFGX is a decent size and there’s little point in a smaller patrol ship. Just build more coast guard ships.

 

[kqcke for you]

The ultra light ESSM launcher (mk48?) would be a much better fit than CAMM, but no one is spending the money.

I think the FFGX is a decent size and there’s little point in a smaller patrol ship. Just build more coast guard ships.

We already got mk56 lighter than MK.48 and if if i remember it right can carry more missiles in the same space .?

 

[Jimmo952]

The LCS has had engineering issues that Morgan does not. Had the insane speed requirements been dropped from LCS perhaps it might have been mildly successful.

The speed requirement, coupled with the aviation, draft and manning requirements dictated hull form, engineering plant, .... the limited manning was over optimistic and made for very tough duty, even in peace time. It would be completely unmanageable in wartime. Even in peace time presence missions, the crews could not maintain the ships and contractors had to be flown in to keep the ships running.

A much better platform could be found for an austere, blue water light frigate.

What's needed is simple, reliable and robust.

Similar to the way the Constellation program was run, open the competition to foreign designs. There are many 3000-5000 ton frigates on the market.

 

[Jimmo952]

There is nothing wrong with a smaller, cheaper Constellation.

We probably can't afford all we need and they can only be in one place at a time.

A cheaper ship with similar capabilities but less capacity would not be a bad thing.

We don't need to put good money after bad by trying to recesitate the LCS.

 

[Moose]

Want a cheaper Connie? Buy a block of 20 of them.

 

[Jimmo952]

Want a cheaper Connie? Buy a block of 20 of them.

There is more to it than that.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There's a design challenge there. What can be built in US yards for roughly half the cost of a Constellation?

Obviously it would be smaller and more austere. The question is how much smaller and how much more austere?

Check the prices for the LCS. ~$500mil each.

 

[Cordy]

Check the prices for the LCS. ~$500mil each.

Actual Navy estimate was $646 million as per the FY2019 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy Justification Book?

 

[H_K]

There is nothing wrong with a smaller, cheaper Constellation.

We probably can't afford all we need and they can only be in one place at a time.

A cheaper ship with similar capabilities but less capacity would not be a bad thing.

FFG(X) is a $600M hull with $300M worth of combat systems added to it.

Those systems make the ship, so we have to define what we want to remove. For example, I could start by removing all area air defense capabilities. This would save approx $120M (AEGIS, EASR radar, Cooperative Engagement Capability, SEWIP jammers, and 3 of the 4 VLS modules - costing based on Navy SCN budget materials).

That gives us a $780M ASW frigate with still some decent local air defense capability via RAM and one 8-cell Mk41 VLS for ESSM, Asroc and the like.

Could I cut further into the remaining $180M worth of combat systems? Most of that are comms, ASW towed sonar, the gun and RAM weapon systems etc… Very hard to do so without completely eliminating all wartime utility and leaving it no better protected than a Coast Guard cutter.

Could I make the hull itself a little cheaper? Certainly… after all the cheapest hull out there is the USCG’s Offshore Patrol Cutter, which costs $300M for the basic hull (unequipped). That’s a very simple ship… hard to build anything under that price point.

So hypothetically if I combine a simple OPC-like hull with the non-Aegis frigate combat systems… $300M + $180M… I get a $500M frigate. Add fixed costs like R&D, program management etc and you’re looking at an ASW patrol frigate for slightly more than 50% the cost of an FFG.

Is that tradeoff worth it? Versus building 2x more FFG(X)s, which will reduce their cost even further? Doubtful.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think you also need to ask the question, does a smaller ship reduce operating costs? I don’t know the answer, but if it has a similar crew size and similar fuel requirements then you would not be saving much.

If you really want to save money, you need to perhaps reconsider the USMCs requirements and whether they are useful enough to justify their cost, or perhaps seriously consider not putting a CV through refit. That would generate real savings that a slightly small combatant would not. A tough choice to be sure, but if you want to save money, you have to address where you are spending it the most.

 

[TomS]

I think APKWS is already integrated with the MH-60 anyway. Certainly I've seen them carry seven round rocket pods, they they might have been unguided.

It was tested as early as 2015, so probably operational.

I'd bet a small sum that APKWS was the weapon used to sink Houthi small boats in the Red Sea yesterday. It's the most logical option I can think of.

 

[Firefinder]

Is that tradeoff worth it? Versus building 2x more FFG(X)s, which will reduce their cost even further? Doubtful.

Especially since you will get the same folks who Scream at the LCS for not being able to survive Peer or escort carriers or what ever their current bugbear is...

And who screamed at tge Perries for a similar reason.

Turning their noise maker at this design.

Then you have the fact that you cant cut the crew back that much, their tried it on 3 different classes, LCS Perry and Spruances. And all 3 ended up need upwards of 50 plus personal added to the Manning.

The FREMM design was also ment to be a lightly man design at that fail as well going from 100 to 200 bodies.

Bout 90 bodies per 3000 tons seem to be the limit to run a military ship properly.

Throw in all the needs a modern combat ship may need to do, from police work to play fly swatter, gestures at the red sea, there is a hard limit to what you can cut before you are a useless paper weight.

And threats are getting cheaper daily at all levels.

The Constellation class is at that limited baring adding CAMM or ESSM to the Independence.

And no matter what you think of the class, moding all 17, to be 19, of those WILL BE CHEAPER then buying new. Like be able to mod 3 for the price of one. To say nothing of telling Austal that the order of 19 became 38. Its a solid design that works, and does all that a hypertheortical cut down FFG62 would do plus useful extras.

And the biggest budget Item for the Services is Pay, follow by medical, then supplies like Fuel, the upkeep maintenance, 3 others things Im forgotten, THEN gear cost at less then 10 percent of budget. We already having trouble with retention, medic and supply cuts, so we cant cut more.

Basically if you want to be the best and have all types of freedom and clout...

Pay the price for it or gtfo.

 

[Scott Kenny]

FFG(X) is a $600M hull with $300M worth of combat systems added to it.

Those systems make the ship, so we have to define what we want to remove. For example, I could start by removing all area air defense capabilities. This would save approx $120M (AEGIS, EASR radar, Cooperative Engagement Capability, SEWIP jammers, and 3 of the 4 VLS modules - costing based on Navy SCN budget materials).

You'd still need some air search radar and FCS, and the whole point of the EASR is that everything in the USN uses it for cost savings. (and the ESM intelligence advantage of no longer having unique radar fits on each class, if not each individual ship.)

Not to mention the SEWIP jammers are probably necessary to survive in the modern seas if someone shoots AShMs at you.

That gives us a $780M ASW frigate with still some decent local air defense capability via RAM and one 8-cell Mk41 VLS for ESSM, Asroc and the like.

That 8-cell Mk41 gives you space for 5x-6x ASROCs and 2x-3x quad ESSMs.

Bare minimum defenses for the ship alone, incapable of defending a convoy.

Could I cut further into the remaining $180M worth of combat systems? Most of that are comms, ASW towed sonar, the gun and RAM weapon systems etc… Very hard to do so without completely eliminating all wartime utility and leaving it no better protected than a Coast Guard cutter.

Could I make the hull itself a little cheaper? Certainly… after all the cheapest hull out there is the USCG’s Offshore Patrol Cutter, which costs $300M for the basic hull (unequipped). That’s a very simple ship… hard to build anything under that price point.

So hypothetically if I combine a simple OPC-like hull with the non-Aegis frigate combat systems… $300M + $180M… I get a $500M frigate. Add fixed costs like R&D, program management etc and you’re looking at an ASW patrol frigate for slightly more than 50% the cost of an FFG.

A ship that is only marginally capable of defending itself, and incapable of defending a convoy.

Silly question: could the Offshore Patrol Cutter mount all the FFGX systems? $300mil hull with $300mil systems installed.

 

[TomS]

Silly question: could the Offshore Patrol Cutter mount all the FFGX systems? $300mil hull with $300mil systems installed.

Not a chance. If a hull 130 feet shorter and with half the displacement could hold all the systems included in the FFG-62 (with growth margins), the hull would be that much smaller already.

 

[Moose]

Yes, there's a reason one of HII's proposals for the Frigate program was based on an enlarged Legend-Class cutter.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Silly question: could the Offshore Patrol Cutter mount all the FFGX systems? $300mil hull with $300mil systems installed.

Like others said: definitely not.

On the other hand, a basic combat suite, just adequate enough to be a decent convoy escort and a towed array rug is doable. Just off the top of my head: COMBATSS-21, AN/USG-2, SPQ-9B, SPS-73, 2 SPG-62, CAPTAS-4, TB-37 and SQQ-89. Stuff like SEWIP, SPS-77, electro-optics and Nixie are already integrated into the basic design, though I'd swap out the Nixie for a SLQ-61 set.

Armanent is the real headache here. The bow seems too small to even fit a RAM set let alone something like 8x Mk41 cell. The RHIBs could go to the sides to free up space for a mission module amidship, but thats all.

Tldr: enough SWAP-C for sensors (probably), no space for missiles.

 

[Cordy]

What is possible, the South Korean 4,300t Chungnam class frigate which is 200t lighter than the 4,500t OPC

From what limited info seen - FFX Batch III Chungnam class frigates 129m length, 14.8m beam, 4,300t full load displacement, CODLOG propulsion system, DRS hybrid propulsion for 17 knots and its powerful RR MT30 GT for max cruise speed of 30 knots. Fitted with an integrated mast dubbed "semi-Aegis" with four panel AESA array, IRST and EOTS. Armed with 16-cell KVLS (Korean Vertical Launching System), Mk.45 5-inch main gun, CIWS-II 30mm gatling gun with its dedicated X-band AESA FCR, 16-cell KVLS (K-SAAM) system (Korean equivalent of RAM) eight angled launchers for anti-ship sea skimming C-Star missile and the land attack Tactical Surface Launch Missile, Sea Dragon, as well as 324mm torpedo launchers for LWT Blue Shark torpedo, SQR-250K TASS, low frequency passive sonar system.

Nov. 2023 Hanwha awarded a 792 billion won/$612 million contract, $306 million each, to build the final two before progressing to FFX Batch IV, any possible chance that Navy and US yard could combine to build similar frigate for $500 million?

 

[MihoshiK]

The Koreans also don't really need blue water ships capable of fighting in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific in bad weather.
And there's no way to tell if the Damage Control and such of those ships is up to USN standards.

 

[Cordy]

The Koreans also don't really need blue water ships capable of fighting in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific in bad weather.
And there's no way to tell if the Damage Control and such of those ships is up to USN standards.

I'm sure the Korean 4,300t frigates are designed to a standard to take bad weather, though as you say no way to tell if the DC is to USN standards, but would have thought that does not make a $500 million US yard build frigate an impossible pipe dream.

 

[Jimmo952]

Yes, there's a reason one of HII's proposals for the Frigate program was based on an enlarged Legend-Class cutter.

Even with that, HI filed for an exemption from some of the requirements. If I remember correctly, they advocated for fewer installed VLS.

Obviously, the Navy didn't go for it.

 

[TomS]

That FFG(X) has about a third less fuel range than the USN FFG-62. Which is probably also reflected in other stores and spares stowage.

The ROKN also has conscription so it may not have to spend as much effort on habitability. But it also probably relies more on repair by replacement, which cuts crew needs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What is possible, the South Korean 4,300t Chungnam class frigate which is 200t lighter than the 4,500t OPC

From what limited info seen - FFX Batch III Chungnam class frigates 129m length, 14.8m beam, 4,300t full load displacement, CODLOG propulsion system, DRS hybrid propulsion for 17 knots and its powerful RR MT30 GT for max cruise speed of 30 knots. Fitted with an integrated mast dubbed "semi-Aegis" with four panel AESA array, IRST and EOTS. Armed with 16-cell KVLS (Korean Vertical Launching System), Mk.45 5-inch main gun, CIWS-II 30mm gatling gun with its dedicated X-band AESA FCR, 16-cell KVLS (K-SAAM) system (Korean equivalent of RAM) eight angled launchers for anti-ship sea skimming C-Star missile and the land attack Tactical Surface Launch Missile, Sea Dragon, as well as 324mm torpedo launchers for LWT Blue Shark torpedo, SQR-250K TASS, low frequency passive sonar system.

Nov. 2023 Hanwha awarded a 792 billion won/$612 million contract, $306 million each, to build the final two before progressing to FFX Batch IV, any possible chance that Navy and US yard could combine to build similar frigate for $500 million?

Unlikely.

Seakeeping and habitability alone are going to be rough.

Seakeeping: That ship is not designed to be out in the North Atlantic in the winter. It's not even really designed to enter the Pacific proper, it's a coastal Frigate. It has limited range even given the efficient low speed engineroom.

Habitability: The Koreans still conscript, so their crew berthing isn't even as nice as the USN 3-high coffin racks. The 95% Korean is about 5'8", the 95% American is 6'2", so their decks are closer together. Passageways are narrower, too.