FFG(X)

DWG said:
Depends on how much of their magazine depth they've devoted to anti-ship missiles, vs Mk 48 and land-attack Tomahawk. More than one additional attack may be pushing it.
Click to expand...
I was honestly assuming Tomahawk Block 5s from the US boats, so they're dual-purpose. But yes, boats would have to decide how much of their torpedo room to allocate to cruise missiles versus torpedoes. I would not expect anything less than 8 torpedoes carried. (looking at SSBN torpedo capacity)



johnpjones1775 said:
Idk, not if we end up getting an escort that’s actually affordable and can do the job without having overkill for capability.
Click to expand...
When a bunch of rebels supplied by Iran of all places can create the Red Sea Turkey Shoot, you'd better design in one hell of a baseline capability.
 
This probably has 0 impact on the program, as Fincantieri and the Navy are so behind with the first 6 hulls that there’s no way they could start construction on a seventh hull next year.

Congress is just saying why pay now when we can wait till FY26 for some evidence of progress before funding the next hulls.
 
Cordy said:
Congress is planning savage cuts to Constellation budget to the end of FY25 by reducing Continuing Resolution from $1.17 billion to $100 million, reflecting their disgust with the Navy over their handling of the program.
Ship was ordered April 2020, nearly two and a half years later August 2022 build was authorized with Adm Morton falsely claiming 80% detail design complete but when the GAO reported May 2024, twenty one months later not in one of the 30 odd Grand Modules of the build had the detail design been 100% completed, Navy has not revealed the current state of play and if they have completed design of any of the Grand Modules.
Now the program is running three years late, overweight and over cost (appearing mainly to impact Fincantieri Marinette Marinetti as they signed a fixed price contract !), no wonder the Far Eastern Shipyards insist amongst other things 100% design is complete before commencing build.

Click to expand...
What? We finally got a fixed rate contract for a ship? That should have been standard imho
 
bring_it_on said:
Congress can continue to trim funds and then cry about how we don't have enough ships a few years later. We're kind of back to square one..with no real viable plan to field more surface combatants in the next 10-15 year time horizon (setting aside the political rhetoric)... Congress is an equal partner on that blame. If they were remotely interested in expanding the surface combatant fleet they should be accelerating the Frigate investments to complete design and open production up for other yards so that we can build this think at the LCS rate of 4 per year at a minimum. Right now, unless the Navy is allowed to (there too I think Congress has trimmed investments) go big on unmanned it is destined to shrink or be forced to operate old and outdated ships.
Click to expand...
Tbh I dont think the Connie’s really got that many more to us. Even if they go with the full order of 20, that’s only 6 or 7 available to deploy at a time, god forbid a ship get hung up in a prolonged yard period, or receive some major accidental damage and need an unscheduled yard period.

We need a class of ship that we can afford at least 60 of.

The more we fuck things up, the more I think we need to just go with MMSCs with an upgraded radar. If it’s notably cheaper than the SPY ‘lite’ arrays we’re putting on the Connies then maybe the UK’s Sampson radar would work. The ships themselves would have fairly low VLS count, but I’d use them as the C&C ship for LUSVs and MUSVs with ADLs if not full on VLS. 16 per hull, have an MMSC controlling 3, and we have our convoy escorts.
 
Ainen said:
If I understand correctly, all these ROCN ships carry up to to 64 inclined TC-2N, as every position is fully modular.
Exceeding 16 is more pointless/expensive rather than impossible.
Click to expand...
ROCN version is capable of 16-cell VLS, however due to budget concern they fit 8 only.
The version suggested to the Aussies got 32-cell VLS, with the expense of removing the main gun
 
Grey Havoc said:

Naval Group Offers Greece Local Build of 3 More FDI Frigates - Naval News

Naval Group has informed Greek leadership with a proposal that includes the local construction of 3 additional FDI frigates
www.navalnews.com
Click to expand...
The acquisition of a total of seven (7) frigates of this type would significantly enhance the capabilities of the Hellenic Navy across all domains of naval warfare. The FDI HN frigates are equipped with a top tier anti-submarine warfare (ASW) suite and boast a formidable AAW missile loadout for their size, with each vessel carrying 24-32 ASTER 30 SAM and 21 RAM SAM.

However, their potential acquisition would likely nullify the announced plan of the political leadership to procure the Constellation-class frigates—not only for the Hellenic Navy’s needs but also with the ambition of co-producing them in Greece for potential export to other regional customers. The Greek leadership is likely to reconsider this option as the “American FREMM” program has been facing increasing delays, amid talks of reduced funding on the program which in turn is casting an increasing doubt on whether these frigates will ever see U.S. Navy service.
Click to expand...
 
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, speaking Wednesday at Sea-Air-Space '25 questioning if the program should be scrapped altogether.
Disclosed that design has still has not been completed, its now "expected" design will be completed by this Summer, August ? That's total incompetence by the Navy/NAVSEA as its over 6 years since the contract was awarded in April '20 for the parent IT- FREMM design (GAO disclosed back in May '24 not one of the many build modules designs had been completed).

https://insidedefense.com/insider/wittman-navy-must-question-future-constellation-class
 
Cordy said:
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, speaking Wednesday at Sea-Air-Space '25 questioning if the program should be scrapped altogether.
Disclosed that design has still has not been completed, its now "expected" design will be completed by this Summer, August ? That's total incompetence by the Navy/NAVSEA as its over 6 years since the contract was awarded in April '20 for the parent IT- FREMM design (GAO disclosed back in May '24 not one of the many build modules designs had been completed).

https://insidedefense.com/insider/wittman-navy-must-question-future-constellation-class
Click to expand...

As much as this disaster of a program deserves to get terminated, I'm not sure that is going back to square one is going to help the Navy get ships faster.

NAVSEA, it's culture and leadership, really needs a hard look and probably a reset.
 
Cordy said:
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, speaking Wednesday at Sea-Air-Space '25 questioning if the program should be scrapped altogether.
Disclosed that design has still has not been completed, its now "expected" design will be completed by this Summer, August ? That's total incompetence by the Navy/NAVSEA as its over 6 years since the contract was awarded in April '20 for the parent IT- FREMM design (GAO disclosed back in May '24 not one of the many build modules designs had been completed).

https://insidedefense.com/insider/wittman-navy-must-question-future-constellation-class
Click to expand...

This is coming from a congressman representing a district adjacent to Newport News. At this point, I'd argue for a parallel program to the FFGX, as cancellation of a Wisconsin project isn't politically viable. A good place to start might be cost decontenting a Flight III Burke class hull into a "Frigate." To put it another way, if you eliminated a pair of LM2500 gas turbines and downgraded to a rotating or Constellation class 3-face SPY-6 array, and added in the CAPTAS active towed array and some manner of auxilary electric cruising motors, what sort of overall per unit costs would you have? Or better yet, just downgrading the radar and ESM systems and left the rest of the hull alone, except to fitting an active towed array?
 
Jimmo952 said:
As much as this disaster of a program deserves to get terminated, I'm not sure that is going back to square one is going to help the Navy get ships faster.

NAVSEA, it's culture and leadership, really needs a hard look and probably a reset.
Click to expand...

Too late.
Jimmo952 said:
As much as this disaster of a program deserves to get terminated, I'm not sure that is going back to square one is going to help the Navy get ships faster.

NAVSEA, it's culture and leadership, really needs a hard look and probably a reset.
Click to expand...

Cancellation is not going to happen. Wisconsin is a "swing state" and neither political party wants to lose the 2026 midterm of 2028 presidential election. There will definitely be at least 6 Constellation Class frigates in service....eventually. And unless the American electoral map changes, continuous shipbuilding will be maintained in Wisconsin. Even if the ships in question belong to a class that is already being placed into reserve like the Freedom class. I'm still betting on the Wisconsin built Constellation program going well into a double digital number of hulls.
 
Josh_TN said:
Restarting the process will not get you a ship faster. But the process and people who allowed this to happen should be investigated.
Click to expand...

For sure. I don't fault the shipbuilder in this case.
I blame the clowns that can't stop themselves from continually tweaking the design until it has almost nothing in common with the parent design.
 
Cordy said:
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, speaking Wednesday at Sea-Air-Space '25 questioning if the program should be scrapped altogether.
Disclosed that design has still has not been completed, its now "expected" design will be completed by this Summer, August ? That's total incompetence by the Navy/NAVSEA as its over 6 years since the contract was awarded in April '20 for the parent IT- FREMM design (GAO disclosed back in May '24 not one of the many build modules designs had been completed).

https://insidedefense.com/insider/wittman-navy-must-question-future-constellation-class
Click to expand...
My guy had told me this was being talked about a few months, not sure if I alluded to it some where here now or not, but yeah. We’re in a lot of trouble at this point and I truly hope we figure something out in order to make DDG(X) program run more smoothly.
 
TinWing said:
Too late.

Cancellation is not going to happen. Wisconsin is a "swing state" and neither political party wants to lose the 2026 midterm of 2028 presidential election. There will definitely be at least 6 Constellation Class frigates in service....eventually. And unless the American electoral map changes, continuous shipbuilding will be maintained in Wisconsin. Even if the ships in question belong to a class that is already being placed into reserve like the Freedom class. I'm still betting on the Wisconsin built Constellation program going well into a double digital number of hulls.
Click to expand...
No more freedoms are scheduled to be decommissioned…and I don’t think any have been in the last year or two…
 
The real problem with this whole program is the USN wants mini-Burkes for like 60-70% of a burke, when what we need is actual frigates for 30-50% of a Burke’s cost, and a huge part of that cost is the main radar. We’re putting 3 mini-SPY arrays that cost like $90-$100m each on, instead of a single rotating radar that might cost $80m and be good enough.

I would be more than happy to see HII’s patrol frigate get picked up or even the MMSC at this point. Something cheap with low manning that can be purchased and operated in large numbers, and that can provide escort to convoys in a hot war…because that is the USN’s biggest mission gap at the moment.
Maybe the slightest of tweaks to provide the ship with a sonar, or possibly a deployable USV that’s basically just a roving sonar to boost its ASW capabilities.
(Would also solve the Wisconsin issue)
 
TinWing said:
if you eliminated a pair of LM2500 gas turbines and downgraded to a rotating or Constellation class 3-face SPY-6 array, and added in the CAPTAS active towed array and some manner of auxilary electric cruising motors, what sort of overall per unit costs would you have?
Click to expand...
But long would this take? I'm betting on longer than finishing Constellation. NAVSEA have a problem, giving them another ship to exercise their problem on doesn't fix the problem.

DOGE's not the solution, but NAVSEA's just given us an example of how not to build an existing design and that says major changes are needed, starting with the leadership who allowed six years of changes.
 
Me, personally, I'd have cancelled the class right when reports of anything more than 25% parts redesign were to come out. In reality it is not 25, but 85, for a program touted for a low-risk development approach. And COVID is not an excuse.
 
At this point, the problem we're looking at is sunk cost. Not in terms of monetary cost, but the time spent. The USN needs an ASW frigate now, the quickest way it'll one is either finishing Constellation, or adopting an existing design unchanged, whether FREMM, Type 26 or some other Western design,
 
The only valid reason for starting over at this point would be if the final Constellation design is not really what the navy needs. Something like 48 of these ships, in various flights, are planned, and likely many more if our unprecedented times become unprecedented-er. The hull for the lead ship of Constellation has been laid, and I believe some module construction has begun, and the land testing for propulsion is either planned or underway. If it's not the design the Navy wants, it's not too late to start over.

Otherwise, given that the Constellation is not an ambitious design, and assuming that SPY-6 and AEGIS are indeed needed for a frigate, then what exactly would be gained by a redesign of the ship that you just designed (mostly) from scratch? Build the ship.
 
joshjosh said:
Otherwise, given that the Constellation is not an ambitious design, and assuming that SPY-6 and AEGIS are indeed needed for a frigate, then what exactly would be gained by a redesign of the ship that you just designed (mostly) from scratch? Build the ship.
Click to expand...
Most often, if program is flawed, it's flawed.
That ridge, after which everything will be sun and blue sky, is forever just a few months away.

When constellation was first shown, it was amongst the most ambitious frigates shown anywhere.
Now, it isn't even the most ambitious FREMM. And that's before series properly started.
A shame, but...
 
The question is if there has been scope creep durring the life of the project?

The FFGX has supposedly gone through multiple design revisions/re-designs.

It's a case of chasing the perfect over the good.

I fear, at this time, NAVSEA could screw up the design/construction of a barge.

If you look at US naval shipbuilding, it is clear there are serious problems that extend beyond the number of yards and welders available.
 
Ainen said:
When constellation was first shown, it was amongst the most ambitious frigates shown anywhere.
Now, it isn't even the most ambitious FREMM. And that's before series properly started.
A shame, but...
Click to expand...
How is the Constellation ambitious? They chose to modify an existing design, explicitly to reduce risk, even if it's become basically a clean sheet design by this point. But every bit of design and redesign has incorporated existing technologies and systems. There are no revolutionary systems on the Constellation. So how is it ambitious?
 
joshjosh said:
How is the Constellation ambitious? They chose to modify an existing design, explicitly to reduce risk, even if it's become basically a clean sheet design by this point. But every bit of design and redesign has incorporated existing technologies and systems. There are no revolutionary systems on the Constellation. So how is it ambitious?
Click to expand...

Agreed. It was envisioned as a conservative, can't miss project because they were starting with a mature, successful design.

Only mature, already-in-use, ships were allowed to be bid.

Most of the systems selected for use on FFGX are already in use by the US Navy.

That's how it started....

Now look at where we are.
 
DWG said:
At this point, the problem we're looking at is sunk cost. Not in terms of monetary cost, but the time spent. The USN needs an ASW frigate now, the quickest way it'll one is either finishing Constellation, or adopting an existing design unchanged, whether FREMM, Type 26 or some other Western design,
Click to expand...
Imo the Type 26 would be the best choice for them, but also highly unrealistic.

I assume the Constellations will be finished and then politics come into play and the class gets cancelled and the Navy is back at the start.

Perhaps then they're willing to swallow the bitter pill of just taking what others designed and just roll with it. You can't convince me that a FREMM or Type 26 are significantly less survivable or capable than other contemporary warships. As if Italy or the UK would even operate something that's subpar.

The Type 26 obviously has some benefits, it would fit into the AUKUS framework and would essentially become the standard frigate for the Anglosphere. But again, I have my doubts about it.
 
Jimmo952 said:
Agreed. It was envisioned as a conservative, can't miss project because they were starting with a mature, successful design.

Only mature, already-in-use, ships were allowed to be bid.

Most of the systems selected for use on FFGX are already in use by the US Navy.

That's how it started....

Now look at where we are.
Click to expand...

How do they say?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
Josh_TN said:
They might fuck up to, but clearly the process that produced/is attempting to produce the design also broke.
Click to expand...

At this point US naval procurement has become some sort of Ouroboros where the Navy, the Shipyards and the Politicians all fuck up/sabotage each other which just creates a never ending loop of issues upon issues.

As someone who is probably well below the median age here, I truly wonder what changed so drastically since the times of the Ticonderogas and Burkes, what led to this incredible deterioration? It's truly a topic to be studied.

It is quite frankly incredibly fortunate for the USN that the Arleigh-Burke turned out to be such an incredibly adaptable design of which they now have like what? 70? 80? If it wasn't for that backbone, the situation would be far, far worse. And it's already not looking good.

As for the Constellation, it's a damn shame it turned out how it did, it's a pretty ship at least, when they'll eventually finish it.
 
Last edited:
Jimmo952 said:
Most of the systems selected for use on FFGX are already in use by the US Navy.

That's how it started....

Now look at where we are.
Click to expand...
As far as the public knows, that's still where we are.

Off the shelf technologies that the USN already uses.

SPY-6 EASR, SEWIP, Mk.41, Mk. 110, Aegis, CODLAG, a proven towed sonar from Thales. How is this ambitious? It's just a mini Burke, there is nothing next-generation that will need to be proved out. The power generation is probably the most "risky" thing.

That's why I'm saying that unless the concept of this frigate is bad, I don't see what would be gained from starting over.

Does the navy need to go for a super ambitious design? Doubtful.

Does the navy need to remove SPY-6, Aegis, Mk 41? I guess you could make that argument, but then you just have another LCS that is incapable of independent action. SPY-6, Aegis, and 32 VLS seems like the bare minimum now.
 
joshjosh said:
As far as the public knows, that's still where we are.

Off the shelf technologies that the USN already uses.

SPY-6 EASR, SEWIP, Mk.41, Mk. 110, Aegis, CODLAG, a proven towed sonar from Thales. How is this ambitious? It's just a mini Burke, there is nothing next-generation that will need to be proved out. The power generation is probably the most "risky" thing.

That's why I'm saying that unless the concept of this frigate is bad, I don't see what would be gained from starting over.

Does the navy need to go for a super ambitious design? Doubtful.

Does the navy need to remove SPY-6, Aegis, Mk 41? I guess you could make that argument, but then you just have another LCS that is incapable of independent action. SPY-6, Aegis, and 32 VLS seems like the bare minimum now.
Click to expand...
Just need to get rid of SPY for a cheaper rotating radar.
Probably the same one being used to upgrade LCS radars and the price drops significantly.

I just don’t have any clue how the Connie had her keel laid like 2 years ago and they still haven’t finalized the design…like what are they still bickering over? How many urinals vs stalls to put in the heads?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
ust don’t have any clue how the Connie had her keel laid like 2 years ago and they still haven’t finalized the design…like what are they still bickering over? How many urinals vs stalls to put in the heads?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they are arguing over adding potholes, anti-tank weapons, and a 120mm smoothbore.

I can only speculate, but it seems reasonable to point out that Fincantieri Marinette Marine did not pitch a clean sheet design to the Navy, and the Navy also told Congress that it would not be clean sheet.

FMM would not have stood up a design team capable of doing a clean sheet design in a short amount of time.

So when the Navy requested so many tweaks to get the ship to where they actually wanted it, that work would fall on an undersized design team in a country that barely even has naval architects anymore.

Even small and unambitious design changes would then take a very long time to complete, especially given that most of the ship has evidently had these tweaks.

We know that the bridge and the propulsion modules have not had many changes. That leaves everything else.
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom