FFG(X)

[Scott Kenny]

Not so sure e.g. the Israeli 1,900t Sa'ar 6 corvette with its Elta S-band EL/M-2248 MF-STAR radar has test fired the 150 km? BARAK LRAD missile and Saab won the Sep 2019 contract for the new Finnish 3,900t Pohjanmaa-class ship radars and in Jul 2021 the contract for the MLU of the German 4,500t Brandenburg-Class (F123) ASW frigates both their AESA GaN S-band Sea Giraffe 4A FF and Sea Giraffe 1X radars, have seen instrumented range quoted for the 4A FF of 400 km and ability to track Mach 5 missiles which think more than adequate for a frigate, anything over and above that would classify as over kill for a frigate.

That would more than imply other drivers for Constellation's near twice the displacement of the Perry class unless the EASR SPY-6(V)3 radar very high in top weight?

It's a big radar, so I do suspect it's got a lot of topweight.

 

[Scott Kenny]

but you would expect for 10,000+ tonnes they would put more than just 16 Mk 41 for very short legged ESSM and 8 shortlegged NSM

You do remember that ESSMs are quad-packed, so that's not 16x missiles, but potentially 12x SM2 and 16x ESSMs, or as many as 64x ESSMs, right?

 

[donnage99]

You do remember that ESSMs are quad-packed, so that's not 16x missiles, but potentially 12x SM2 and 16x ESSMs, or as many as 64x ESSMs, right?

Yes now imagine if they can develop a way to pack APKWS II they probably exceed a hundred missiles carried. Suddenly now it's the most heavily armed ship in europe

 

[donnage99]

Then what do you think are the Coastguard requirments?

What's your point? It's a peace time patrol ship with limited anti air and anti surface capabilities with cruiser price tag. A flag ship with T Rex arms.

A constellation frigate carries 32 mk41 at 7000 tonnes while only fulfilling a 2nd line of defense behind destroyers in a peer conflict.

 

[kqcke for you]

I mean

What's your point? It's a peace time patrol ship with limited anti air and anti surface capabilities with cruiser price tag. A flag ship with T Rex arms.

Yes a heavy price but they can't Stop it anymore without paying a mutch heavier price. Also we dont know how mutch future capabilitys are possible in terms of armament.

A constellation frigate carries 32 mk41 at 7000 tonnes while only fulfilling a 2nd line of defense behind destroyers in a peer conflict.

Yes and? What the us does with it frigates doesnt have to be the same the german navy does.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes now imagine if they can develop a way to pack APKWS II they probably exceed a hundred missiles carried. Suddenly now it's the most heavily armed ship in europe

And you were complaining about the range of ESSMs...

 

[donnage99]

And you were complaining about the range of ESSMs...

I was being sarcastic

 

[donnage99]

I mean

Yes a heavy price but they can't Stop it anymore without paying a mutch heavier price. Also we dont know how mutch future capabilitys are possible in terms of armament.

Yes and? What the us does with it frigates doesnt have to be the same the german navy does.

First, yes we do not know future armament but we do know what the limits are. 16 mk41 is 16 for the rest of its life. You either have powerful weapons with a clownishly low numbers or a high numbers of relatively not so capable weapons for a cruiser sized ship.

Second, a war is a war. A peer adversary won't bring a smaller knife because it's not US.

The ship is built around requirements based on philosophy much like the lcs. Peace keeping with some capabilties against non state actors and terror organizations. The inflated size is for cost saving over long terms = longer missions less maintainance and for smaller number of ships. However, that cost saving will only come if you can somehow garantee no peer to peer war. The moment a war kicks in, a 10,000 tonnes warship will suddenly become without mission. Too vulnerable and too expensive to lose. Now the cost saving becomes money wasting. Such phisolophy starts to become even more insane given the current political climate.

This is precisely why US doesn't reduce fighter fleet to buy COIN aircraft over the war on terror era. Sure, you will save a ton of money flight per hour but the moment a near peer war happens all the money invested in the new fleet will be a complete waste.

 

[kqcke for you]

First, yes we do not know future armament but we do know what the limits are. 16 mk41 is 16 for the rest of its life. You either have powerful weapons with a clownishly low numbers or a high numbers of relatively not so capable weapons for a cruiser sized ship.

We dont know If it can or cannot take more cells or other VLS systems on....

The ship is built around requirements based on philosophy much like the lcs. Peace keeping with some capabilties against non state actors and terror organizations. The inflated size is for cost saving over long terms = longer missions less maintainance and for smaller number of ships. However, that cost saving will only come if you can somehow garantee no peer to peer war. The moment a war kicks in, a 10,000 tonnes warship will suddenly become without mission. Too vulnerable and too expensive to lose. Now the cost saving becomes money wasting. Such phisolophy starts to become even more insane given the current political climate.

Its not without a mission in a peer to peer war. Your right when you mean that it wont do primary frontline fighting but it will do Escort, Work as one of the ASW vessels of the fleet and it can / could do more. It may also go there to places like bab-el-mandep and take on the mission so more high end vessels can be used in over regions.

 

[yeetmahboi]

The ship is built around requirements based on philosophy much like the lcs. Peace keeping with some capabilties against non state actors and terror organizations. The inflated size is for cost saving over long terms = longer missions less maintainance and for smaller number of ships. However, that cost saving will only come if you can somehow garantee no peer to peer war. The moment a war kicks in, a 10,000 tonnes warship will suddenly become without mission. Too vulnerable and too expensive to lose. Now the cost saving becomes money wasting. Such phisolophy starts to become even more insane given the current political climate.

The premise for this argument assumes that the German navy would do frontline work like slinging missiles, provide long-range convoy escorts against long-range attack aviation, etc like the USN.
Of course, that is incorrect.
The F126 aims for general low-intensity combat e.g long-range patrol and flag waving, anti-piracy, with alot of sensors and large mission module bays all while being self-sufficient by having large machinery spaces and stores onboard. Is it a waste of money and resources? Yes. But it's not terrible in anyway unless youre buying a 20+ fleet, global deployment and countering the PLAN.

I'd argue that the dumbest thing about the design is that they didn't try to cram another 3-4k tons into the ship to have a decent amount of future proofing. Germany isn't a nation that can afford expensive buys every 2-3 decades tbh.

 

[kqcke for you]

I'd argue that the dumbest thing about the design is that they didn't try to cram another 3-4k tons into the ship to have a decent amount of future proofing. Germany isn't a nation that can afford expensive buys every 2-3 decades tbh.

The real question is how large are the reserves are or the amount of what is possible. We dont know it for f-125 too.
We also have to consider that the upgrades are often very small for thoses ships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Question: in the event of Cold War Gone Hot, what was the mission of the German Navy? Controlling the Baltic?

 

[Topi]

Question: in the event of Cold War Gone Hot, what was the mission of the German Navy? Controlling the Baltic?

My guess would be:

1. Preventing a breakout of the Soviet Baltic Fleet, the Volksmarine and the Polish Navy in cooperation with the Royal Danish Navy (and unofficially the Royal Swedish Navy) and afterwards neutralise the enemy navies in the Baltic.
2. Provide ASW and convoy escort to Norway to in cooperation with the Royal Navy, the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Royal Norwegian Navy and the Royal Danish Navy in the North Sea.
3. Assist US Navy, Royal Navy and Marine Nationale ASW task groups in the North Atlantic.

 

[Josh_TN]

but you would expect for 10,000+ tonnes they would put more than just 16 Mk 41 for very short legged ESSM and 8 shortlegged NSM

I believe Constellation has 32 Mk41 cells and 16 NSM deck launchers, or lease room/provisions for 16. Displacement is more like 7,000 tons.

EDIT: sorry, I think the original post was discussing the German ship, not the USN one. The German requirement is probably much more akin to a patrol vessel and it is hard to imagine it getting into a heated surface to surface or air to surface engagement.

 

[kqcke for you]

Different budget, arsenal and personal amount can change the capabilitys of ships. F-126 has around half the crew of it and very high automation und redundance which takes mutch more place. Then again for the mission there few ships better armed (T26, Constellation, Azuki)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Different budget, arsenal and personal amount can change the capabilitys of ships. F-126 has around half the crew of it and very high automation und redundance which takes mutch more place. Then again for the mission there few ships better armed (T26, Constellation, Azuki)

Greater automation is great until someone blows a hole in your ship. Then all of a sudden you can either fight the ship or fix it.

 

[Apophenia]

Greater automation is great until someone blows a hole in your ship. Then all of a sudden you can either fight the ship or fix it.

Greater automation addresses both diminished budgets and aging-out demographics. If your nation can still provide large complements for less automated warships, then keep it up I guess ...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Greater automation addresses both diminished budgets and aging-out demographics. If your nation can still provide large complements for less automated warships, then keep it up I guess ...

Still means that a ship in combat basically only last till the first missile/bomb gets past the CIWS, then it's completely out of the fight because you have to take crew away from weapons to do damage control.

 

[Cordy]

Still means that a ship in combat basically only last till the first missile/bomb gets past the CIWS, then it's completely out of the fight because you have to take crew away from weapons to do damage control.

The other massive change is that when BuShips designed ships in WWII they built in armor so when a ship was hit it drastically mitigated the resulting damage to ship by containing it, still don't understand why armor still not fitted to warships which intended to go into harm's way. The Israeli claim Iron Dome has the highest kill rate of 90% of any missile, so you can reasonably expect some ASCMs leakers will get thru and hit ships, armor is still needed.

 

[kqcke for you]

The other massive change is that when BuShips designed ships in WWII they built in armor so when a ship was hit it drastically mitigated the resulting damage to ship by containing it, still don't understand why armor still not fitted to warships which intended to go into harm's way. The Israeli claim Iron Dome has the highest kill rate of 90% of any missile, so you can reasonably expect some ASCMs leakers will get thru and hit ships, armor is still needed.

For that today primary composites / Kevlar Armor is used next to high end steel. Good amount of Steel

 

[Foo Fighter]

Still means that a ship in combat basically only last till the first missile/bomb gets past the CIWS, then it's completely out of the fight because you have to take crew away from weapons to do damage control.

IF you have enough crew to perform that task and engine room/bridge functions. IMHO, these small crews are driven by bean counters who claim efficiency stats rule all.

My points to those here who love the small crew theory are thus:-

A recent study on nhs efficiency studies found that they led to the opposite of efficiency and led to higher losses of the very thing they were aimed at promoting. They were found to have goals driven by a need to 'please' the people funding the studies and 'their' goals. So much money was wasted in those I am of the opinion that these solutions are there to waste resources rather than save them.

Considering the loss of expensive ships and their highly trained crews, I believe the really small crew ship to be the emperors new clothes writ large. Time will tell I suppose.

Another example.

Way back while working in acute health care, we were told that we had to enter patient data at each and every choke point between the start of every patient movement and their completion of treatment. It was supposed to make us 33% more efficient. How? No more porters and no more technicians/nurses etc. That little set up cost millions in electronic kit alone and patient movement/treatment slowed to a crawl to the point where cold surgery was cancelled for six months.

Of course, doctors just had their community colleagues send all patients in via casualty and we were doing more overtime than ever. I am still owed more than £6k in overtime payments I never got from that time.

How much does it cost to train these small crews?

 

[Josh_TN]

With regards to damage control: since most any hit is a disabling one, at least in terms of combat capability, one wonders if it is cost effective to even plan for it. I’d want plenty of structural support and reserve buoyancy to absorb a hit and stay afloat long enough to give the crew time to exit, but is a ship really going to survive a hit and be put back into service? Stark is the only example I can think of that was, and now a days the incoming is likely supersonic or hypersonic. We may be past practical DC for ships with low displacement.

ETA:

USS Cole was also put back into survive, though that attack was rather atypical and IMO not very instructive with regards to penetrating AShMs or underwater mine/torpedo explosions.

 

[Josh_TN]

The other massive change is that when BuShips designed ships in WWII they built in armor so when a ship was hit it drastically mitigated the resulting damage to ship by containing it, still don't understand why armor still not fitted to warships which intended to go into harm's way. The Israeli claim Iron Dome has the highest kill rate of 90% of any missile, so you can reasonably expect some ASCMs leakers will get thru and hit ships, armor is still needed.

Armor does nothing for survivability once it is penetrated by the projectile, and no reasonable amount of armor can protect a ship from modern AShMs. Even subsonic missiles with penetrating warheads could likely go through anything short of WWII main belt armor. As another post noted, splinter armor and increased structure support is added for post hit survival; FFGX gained 800 tons in weight over the original design meeting the USNs structural requirements.

 

[Josh_TN]

With regards to survivability, another factor is that modern IIR guided weapons can pick their aim points. Every NSM/LRASM test I’ve seen footage of shows the weapon passing cleanly through the forward superstructure/simulated superstructure right into the CIC or where it would be on a real ship (targets are often barges with TEU containers). That is going to wipe out your sensors, coms, navigation, combat system, most of the officers, and just generally turn the bridge and CIC into more of an open concept layout.

 

[kqcke for you]

Well damage Control is hard even for large crews and like the other said before most if not all hits will do critical damage. The large size of the ships could help with letting the ship stay long enough in the water for the crew to leave. And based on personal reasons it makes sense. I mean 6 burkes would need all of the Personal of the german frigate fleet which has right now 11 ships.

 

[Apophenia]

... IMHO, these small crews are driven by bean counters who claim efficiency stats rule all...

Economics (counted in beans or alternative currencies) will always be a factor. And let's assume for the moment that larger complements are the ideal for less automated warships operated by large navies. Then what about smaller navies?

Being a big-spender doesn't change a nation's demographics (unless they are willing to hire mercenaries). So, economics aside, a choice will still need to be made - all available sailors and officers aboard one, big-complement ships ... or, a larger number of suitably automated vessels.

That second option made be less than ideal - especially when things get hot, as Scott Kenny said. On the other hand, your single high-complement ship can't be everywhere at once - which reduces its deterrence value. Nothing is ever perfect. It is about choices.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The other massive change is that when BuShips designed ships in WWII they built in armor so when a ship was hit it drastically mitigated the resulting damage to ship by containing it, still don't understand why armor still not fitted to warships which intended to go into harm's way. The Israeli claim Iron Dome has the highest kill rate of 90% of any missile, so you can reasonably expect some ASCMs leakers will get thru and hit ships, armor is still needed.

Tanks show that you cannot put enough armor on a warship to stop shots from penetrating.

So did the test of a 1000lb shaped charge on a battleship turret post-WW2. That one was particularly horrifying to the Navy, as that 1000lb charge blew clear through the top armor of a turret, and all the way down to the 3rd deck under the turret. The magazine. It meant that ONE PLANE getting through air defenses was now capable of turning any battleship into an Arizona.

So what the Navy did was assume that individual compartments will be penetrated, but applied spall armor (both kevlar and STS) to prevent damage from spreading outside the penetrated compartments.

As to Iron Dome, that's why you have multiple interception layers to work with. Let's say each of the defensive systems have an 80% Pk, except for your CIWS that has a 100% chance of stopping 1 incoming. So you need to get 2x missiles through RAM to get one past the CIWS. This means 10 missiles need to get to the RAM interception envelope. In order to get those 10 missiles to RAM, you need 50 missiles to get to the ESSMs (12x cells in the VLS, thank BuWeps for quad-packs). And finally in order to get 50 missiles to the ESSMs, you need to get 250 missiles to the SM2s. (USN weapons for examples, I'm sure every other nation has equivalents)

You just sent an entire Bomber Regiment of 48 aircraft out, each with 6x missiles. Worth it for a carrier, maybe not for an FFG or DDG.

Yes, this ignores magazine limit, but it gives you the idea of just how many missiles are needed, even when the individual defensive systems are only 80% effective.

Economics (counted in beans or alternative currencies) will always be a factor. And let's assume for the moment that larger complements are the ideal for less automated warships operated by large navies. Then what about smaller navies?

Being a big-spender doesn't change a nation's demographics (unless they are willing to hire mercenaries). So, economics aside, a choice will still need to be made - all available sailors and officers aboard one, big-complement ships ... or, a larger number of suitably automated vessels.

That second option made be less than ideal - especially when things get hot, as [B]Scott Kenny[/B] said. On the other hand, your single high-complement ship can't be everywhere at once - which reduces its deterrence value. Nothing is ever perfect. It is about choices.

I'm all for intelligently automating. Gas Turbines mean that you don't need 50 dudes on watch tending the boilers, or even a Maneuvering Room at all because the engines are directly controlled on the bridge.

I'm also against automating to the point that you cannot fix the ship while still remaining some level of combat capable.

 

[Apophenia]

...
I'm also against automating to the point that you cannot fix the ship while still remaining some level of combat capable.

Understood.

Again, if your demographics support a 500+ ship USN fleet made up of less automated vessels, keep it up. (But also bear in mind that most of your allies cannot hope to do the same.)

 

[BlackBat242]

ETA:

USS Cole was also put back into survive, though that attack was rather atypical and IMO not very instructive with regards to penetrating AShMs or underwater mine/torpedo explosions.

OK - you want mines? Look at USS Samuel B. Roberts FFG-58 (also a Perry class).

Samuel B. Roberts had arrived in the Persian Gulf and was heading for a refueling rendezvous with USS San Jose on 14 April 1988 when the ship struck an Iranian mine in the central Persian Gulf, an area she had safely transited a few days earlier. The mine blew a 15-foot (4.6 m) hole in the hull, flooded the engine room, and knocked the two gas turbines from their mounts.

The blast also broke the keel of the ship; such structural damage is almost always fatal to a vessel. The crew fought fire and flooding for five hours and saved the ship. Among other steps, sailors cinched cables on the cracked superstructure in an effort to stabilize it.

She used her auxiliary thrusters to get out of the minefield at 5 kn (5.8 mph; 9.3 km/h). San Jose's helicopters provided firefighting and engineering supplies to augment the crew's efforts. According to How We Fight, by the US Naval War College, the ship never lost combat capability with her radars and Mark 13 missile launcher. However, according to No Higher Honor by Bradley Peniston, the ship lost power for at least five minutes. After power was lost, the radars were disconnected to allow restoration of the power grid.

Ten sailors were medevaced by HC-5 CH-46s embarked on San Jose for injuries sustained in the blast; six returned to Samuel B. Roberts in a day or so. Four burn victims were sent for treatment to a military hospital in Germany.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Understood.

Again, if your demographics support a 500+ ship USN fleet made up of less automated vessels, keep it up. (But also bear in mind that most of your allies cannot hope to do the same.)

But it also doesn't mean running your manning down to under 50.

 

[yeetmahboi]

But it also doesn't mean running your manning down to under 50.

No ships run below 50. The lowest crew count achieve in a LSC-class vessel is around 130 plus. Mogami has 90 but with insane automation and very little future proofing built in.
Actually I dont think there's any warships that runs with a crew small enough that they cant do damage control.

 

[kqcke for you]

Yeah but atleast for now nobody is doing that. F-126 has a normal Crew of 114-140 and max of 198 persons are possible.

 

[kqcke for you]

Even K130 who is just shy of 90m Long has a crew of about 56-65 sailor.

 

[Cordy]

FFGX gained 800 tons in weight over the original design meeting the USNs structural requirements.

Can you quote a source as that contradicts the PEO graphic which showed an increase of 500t for the FFG-62 vs FREMM part for margins and future growth, length increased 23.6' and waterline beam 3.6'

The President of Fincantieri Marinette Marine Vice Adm. Rick Hunt, USN Ret. said to make FREMM compliant to USN standards they needed to toughen up the ship and added 300t steel to make hull stronger, stiffen the bending moment, increased survivability to take a combatant hit, improved the sea keeping, understand changes required showed up in tank testing of FREMM model in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock.

 

[Josh_TN]

OK - you want mines? Look at USS Samuel B. Roberts FFG-58 (also a Perry class).

A contact mine isn’t especially representative either. But in any case, to the original point I was making, not something armor is effective against.

 

[Josh_TN]

Can you quote a source as that contradicts the PEO graphic which showed an increase of 500t for the FFG-62 vs FREMM part for margins and future growth, length increased 23.6' and waterline beam 3.6'

The President of Fincantieri Marinette Marine Vice Adm. Rick Hunt, USN Ret. said to make FREMM compliant to USN standards they needed to toughen up the ship and added 300t steel to make hull stronger, stiffen the bending moment, increased survivability to take a combatant hit, improved the sea keeping, understand changes required showed up in tank testing of FREMM model in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock.

My point was just that the USN does have survival requirements that have little to do with armor, outside Kevlar spall liners. Armoring a ship doesn’t buy anything which is why no one does it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

No ships run below 50. The lowest crew count achieve in a LSC-class vessel is around 130 plus. Mogami has 90 but with insane automation and very little future proofing built in.
Actually I dont think there's any warships that runs with a crew small enough that they cant do damage control.

You might want to review the early LCS manning numbers. Core crews in the 30s, plus module crew.

 

[Apophenia]

But it also doesn't mean running your manning down to under 50.

Okay. Maybe I'm wrong.

Perhaps there is no relationship whatsoever between demographic decline and military recruiting and/or staffing warships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Okay. Maybe I'm wrong.

Perhaps there is no relationship whatsoever between demographic decline and military recruiting and/or staffing warships.

• Or, more likely, paying well under comparable civilian wages leading to massive recruiting shortfalls.
• And in the case of Germany, a culture that is very unkind to patriotism or pride in the nation, which makes recruiting even more difficult.
• It further doesn't help that there's very little demand in the civilian side for a deck seaman, as almost all cargo is offloaded automatically. So what you need to concentrate on is the technical rates. Navigation, sonar, radar, radios, engines, etc. Those all translate more or less directly into civilian jobs, so if you want to retain the people you spent a lot of time and money training you need to pay them well enough that they don't double their income by leaving.

Physically larger ships as required by the radars for stability can and should mean better crew habitability. 4-man bunkrooms instead of open bays. Automating to some levels to reduce the number of systems that require constant babysitting. But you really need to start your crew requirements from battlestations and work backwards. Have all the systems manned, all the crew you need to fight the ship, then include the crew you need to fix damage. Two fire hose teams (or more), a flooding team, atmosphere monitoring, etc. Because warships are far too expensive to allow them to be sunk after a single hit.

 

[yeetmahboi]

You might want to review the early LCS manning numbers. Core crews in the 30s, plus module crew.

Total about 75, per wiki. Fine enough.

Two fire hose teams (or more), a flooding team, atmosphere monitoring, etc. Because warships are far too expensive to allow them to be sunk after a single hit.

Agree, but recruiting problems dont allow that.
The USN is in an unfortunate situation where the standards it designs its warships around dont allow "expendable" ships yet it doesnt have enough personell to fill up all the positions all while maintaining a sizable navy *and* is only beginning to introduce unmanned vehicles to compensate.

To maintain the projected number of combat ships, it can either increase automation (which leads to damage control issues like you stated) and/or reduce standards to commercial ones (like what the PLAN is doing, although theres no clear tradeoff), or exponentially increase the number of UUVs and USVs in inventory. Or accepts that there's way to reach hundreds of surface combatant and go with deterrence and subs instead.