FFG(X)

asVAL said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not if you only have a dozen ESSMs onboard and 5x ASROCs (ie, 8x Mk41 cells). That's the kind of defenses I'd expect to see on one of the SURTASS ships, just enough for self protection.
 
@Scott Kenny - Your comments seem at odds with past actuality, the Navy managed to operate the fully equipped 51 Perry class frigates, built between '77 and '89 with a 40 missile magazine, for many years including in the North Atlantic during winter, Perry had very similar displacement as the Korean Chungnam class so what evidence do you have they could not do the same, would point out Korea has no shortage of shipbuilding expertize as its the second largest world shipbuilder.
 
Cordy said:
@Scott Kenny - Your comments seem at odds with past actuality, the Navy managed to operate the fully equipped 51 Perry class frigates, built between '77 and '89 with a 40 missile magazine, for many years including in the North Atlantic during winter, Perry had very similar displacement as the Korean Chungnam class so what evidence do you have they could not do the same, would point out Korea has no shortage of shipbuilding expertize as its the second largest world shipbuilder.
Click to expand...
Therez more to sea keeping than size and displaced.

You have literally 3 different types of balance, as many different types of center of gravity, roll and pitch periods and like 8 other different things Im forgotten.

Thats before you get into the Hull types. Like Remember how everyone stated thst the Zumwalts were DOOOOMED to sink in the first storm they due to their tumblehome hull? Pretty sure you posted multiple articles to that effect.

Then the US basically Yolo her into the Berring Sea up to sea state 7 and it turned out that the only ships that had better sea keeping was the damn flattops and Subs.

Also tge USN Perries where Notoriously the worse seakeeper of the type due to how they were loaded compare to the others.


Sea keeping is a Fucking Hard, I mean absolutely fucking hard thing to do properly. Let alone on a budget. Most of the times the designers ask the navy:

Where is this boat main stomping ground.

And design the boat for that area.

Cause its cheaper that way.


A boat design for the Pacific around the Korean Peninsula is going to be far different then the same tonnage design for the Med or North sea.

Unless you specifically design the ships like the Perrys were for multi ocean work.

No this does not mesn they cant do it. A properly design ship can sail anywhere safely.

It means they going to be less effective outside of their native AO. How much depends on multiple factors.

But generally speaking?

A ship design for multi ocean work?

Is going to cost a decent chunk more then a single ocean one.
 
Do agree seakeeping can be hard, but as said the Navy has done it before with the Perrys and remember reading about the RN in WWII who used 50 ex USN 1,000t four stackers for North Atlantic convey duty.

So repeat again if the Navy is saying they require a force structure of an additional 80 ships, in the main frigates, and if your saying the $1 billion Constellation the minimum size frigate with current funding there is no way the Navy will achieve its force structure fleet of 381.

PS The three Zumwalts they were just a massive black hole for the Navy to shovel $billions down, the Navy tried to cancel them after 2nd ship in 2008, but DOD and Congress insisted on completing third ship, in 2019 GAO reported total of $26 billion and understand the 3rd ship has as yet has not been on a scheduled deployment, re stability you do remember they took out the majority of its top weight by never fitting the SPY-4 Volume Search Radar.
 
Last edited:
The new Mexican frigates are $400mil each. You can get around the sea keeping issue by saving the bigger ships for those areas. The goal would be to use the smaller, cheaper ships during peacetime, saving the more expensive ones for wartime, instead of running the Burkes into the ground.
 
Desertfox said:
The new Mexican frigates are $400mil each. You can get around the sea keeping issue by saving the bigger ships for those areas. The goal would be to use the smaller, cheaper ships during peacetime, saving the more expensive ones for wartime, instead of running the Burkes into the ground.
Click to expand...

How does this work, then? A bunch of ships with minimal air defenses loiter in the Red Sea waiting for the DDGs to hustle out from stateside while the Houthis take potshots at them? (Just to pick a recent example.)
 
TomS said:
How does this work, then? A bunch of ships with minimal air defenses loiter in the Red Sea waiting for the DDGs to hustle out from stateside while the Houthis take potshots at them? (Just to pick a recent example.)
Click to expand...
You have them doing all the other jobs so that the Burkes are available to go to the warzones, in this case the Red Sea.

90% of the jobs warships do these days, involve zero shooting.
 
Desertfox said:
You have them doing all the other jobs so that the Burkes are available to go to the warzones, in this case the Red Sea.

90% of the jobs warships do these days, involve zero shooting.
Click to expand...

Right up until they do. A few months ago, the Red Sea looked quiet. The Persian Gulf is quiet right now. But maybe not next week.
 
Cordy said:
Do agree seakeeping can be hard, but as said the Navy has done it before with the Perrys and remember reading about the RN in WWII who used 50 ex USN 1,000t four stackers for North Atlantic convey duty.
Click to expand...
Perrys were designed for the Winter North Atlantic, which means they'll survive anywhere else just fine.

The USN 4-stackers were a little marginal for the WNA, but they were available right then.


Cordy said:
So repeat again if the Navy is saying they require a force structure of an additional 80 ships, in the main frigates, and if your saying the $1 billion Constellation the minimum size frigate with current funding there is no way the Navy will achieve its force structure fleet of 381.
Click to expand...
Key word is "current funding." Congress tells Navy, "You need to do the following jobs," Navy tells Congress, "We need X many more ships to do that, and it will cost Y additional billion per year to build those ships at the affordable rate."

Edit: And when Congress comes back saying "that's too much money," the Navy says "then decide what jobs you don't want done."
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Key word is "current funding." Congress tells Navy, "You need to do the following jobs," Navy tells Congress, "We need X many more ships to do that, and it will cost Y additional billion per year to build those ships at the affordable rate."

Edit: And when Congress comes back saying "that's too much money," the Navy says "then decide what jobs you don't want done."
Click to expand...
Always difficult to forecast the mood of Congress but as the bipartisan negotiations over the debt limit culminated in the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2023 which set the FY2024 Defense budget limit at $886 billion and do not see that changing any time soon to find additional $billions for the Navy. If the Navy saying their force structure study shows it requires a fleet of 381 and they have to live within their Congressional budget limit, the only option left means procuring less expensive ships and one possible step on that path is a $500 million frigate which appears eminently doable.
 
Cordy said:
Always difficult to forecast the mood of Congress but as the bipartisan negotiations over the debt limit culminated in the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2023 which set the FY2024 Defense budget limit at $886 billion and do not see that changing any time soon to find additional $billions for the Navy. If the Navy saying their force structure study shows it requires a fleet of 381 and they have to live within their Congressional budget limit,
Click to expand...
Again, the response from the Navy to Congress needs to be "then decide what jobs you don't want done." Make it abundantly clear that the Navy doesn't have enough ships to do all that Congress wants, so that Congress either finds more money or reduces tasking.

Congress writes the laws, they can write a special budget for building some new ships. Frankly, ships are a capital expense item like building a new base. Those are usually done as separate budget items, not tied up in the general USN budget.


Cordy said:
the only option left means procuring less expensive ships and one possible step on that path is a $500 million frigate which appears eminently doable.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure that is true.
  • It would have custom combat systems on it, which adds expenses for schools and maintenance compared to using EASR.
  • It would have basically zero ability to defend a convoy from air attack since it only has a dozen ESSMs onboard.
  • It would have minimal ASW capabilities, with 5x ASROCs and probably 24x total lightweight torpedoes between Mk32s on the ship and helicopter dropped.
At best we might be able to chisel down to about $750-800mil total, $450-500mil hull with a $300mil combat system on it. And that will see a lot of complaints about not being sufficiently damage-resistant.
 
@Scott Kenny How about upgunning the USCG’s 11 NSC cutters so they could perform open ocean ASW and close in escort in wartime?

- Towed array in the stern
- Torpedo launchers amidships or on the flight deck
- SeaRAM or RAM instead of Phalanx (from decomm’ed LCS)
- TRS 4D radar (from Freedom class LCS)
- (Optional) NSM box launchers behind the 57mm gun, or maybe more appropriately a Mk 29 launcher for ESSM or (best option) an ADL box launcher for ESSM/Asroc

I’d take that over LCS or a new light frigate, even without VLS for ESSM/VLS.
 

Attachments

  • 1573698708697.png
    1573698708697.png
    974 KB · Views: 38
Last edited:
H_K said:
@Scott Kenny How about upgunning the USCG’s 11 NSC cutters so they could perform open ocean ASW and close in escort in wartime?

- Towed array in the stern
- Torpedo launchers amidships or on the flight deck
- SeaRAM or RAM instead of Phalanx (from decomm’ed LCS)
- TRS 4D radar (from Freedom class LCS)
- (Optional) NSM box launchers behind the 57mm gun, or maybe more appropriately a Mk 29 launcher for ESSM or ADL box launcher for ESSM/Asroc

I’d take that over LCS or a new light frigate, even without VLS for ESSM/VLS.
Click to expand...
So you mean the Patrol Frigate 4921 Concept? k9rm19445pu41.jpg
 
kqcke for you said:
So you mean the Patrol Frigate 4921 Concept?
Click to expand...
Not quite. Not a new build. Just a low cost upgrade of the existing NSC hulls by bolting on some off-the-shelf equipment. That would add 12 hulls with some peacetime & wartime escort capability towards the 381-ship battle force target.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
@Scott Kenny How about upgunning the USCG’s 11 NSC cutters so they could perform open ocean ASW and close in escort in wartime?

- Towed array in the stern
- Torpedo launchers amidships or on the flight deck
- SeaRAM or RAM instead of Phalanx (from decomm’ed LCS)
- TRS 4D radar (from Freedom class LCS)
- (Optional) NSM box launchers behind the 57mm gun, or maybe more appropriately a Mk 29 launcher for ESSM or (best option) an ADL box launcher for ESSM/Asroc

I’d take that over LCS or a new light frigate, even without VLS for ESSM/VLS.
Click to expand...
Not bad, but I think we'd need to add some new builds to cover the time while the NSCs are in refit. Probably 3 more NSCs, so we can have 3 of the old ones in refit at the same time. Would probably be cheapest to build the new ones to the refit standard, instead of building to old NSC standard and then refitting at the end of the program.

And definitely the ADL box launcher for ESSMs and ASROCs, not NSM launchers. If the ADLs aren't available, use Mk29s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not bad, but I think we'd need to add some new builds to cover the time while the NSCs are in refit.
Click to expand...
That’s tempting… but if any more hulls of anything can be built, they should probably be extra FFG-62s, not NSCs (in my opinion).

The upgrades could be rolled out during the cutters’ next docking availabilities… shouldn’t add more than 3-4 months of work, with the only major structural mods likely being some deck strengthening forward to support the ~20 ton ADL launcher.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
That’s tempting… but if any more hulls of anything can be built, they should be extra FFG-62s, not NSCs (in my opinion).

The upgrades could be rolled out during the cutters’ next docking availabilities… shouldn’t add more than 3-4 months of work, with the only major structural mods likely being some deck strengthening forward to support the ~20 ton ADL launcher.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the Coasties would love some more NSCs. Besides, there's a standing option for at least one more already on the books.

And I'd really hate to short the Coasties on at-station time, especially in terms of Search and Rescue.

But if that's really only an extra 3-4 months to add all the "light ASW" kit and ADL during their regularly scheduled refits, just adding one more NSC is probably enough to maintain the coverage we have. Needing 3 more was assuming a dedicated refit.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm sure the Coasties would love some more NSCs. Besides, there's a standing option for at least one more already on the books.

And I'd really hate to short the Coasties on at-station time, especially in terms of Search and Rescue.

But if that's really only an extra 3-4 months to add all the "light ASW" kit and ADL during their regularly scheduled refits, just adding one more NSC is probably enough to maintain the coverage we have. Needing 3 more was assuming a dedicated refit.
Click to expand...

Big problem is that all that kit requires extra crew to maintain, and time to train with. That's time and crew that the Coast Guard doesn't really have. And there's a big organizational tension between Coasties who want the service to be Navy lite and those who joined it specifically because it's Not the Navy.
 
I think you guys are not understanding how Congress works. Sometimes it says "build something in my district!" and sometimes it says "you don't have enough ships so don't retire the most expensive ones to maintain!". It is not a logical process. And starting a new ship class for what is an expeditionary navy is stupid. Build more frigates or build more coast guard cutters. Done. Making new ships always costs the US an arm and a leg; we are buying a foreign design for fuck sake. Take the existing CG cutter classes and take the existing FFGX and just fucking build enough of them without creating the spiral death of a new program.
 
Agree totally a lot of pork barrel politics in Congress at lower level, but don't think that will change the overall top line Defense budget set by the FAC so little chance as said there will be additional billions for the required number of Navy $1 billion frigates to meet the force structure fleet numbers. Taking the existing CG cutters think non-starter as though built to ANSI standards very much doubt built to Navy Level II survivability OPNAV instruction standards e.g. separate engine rooms, the Admirals suffered a major humiliation when it emerged they had ignored their own OPNAV survivability standards for the LCS classes and it’s a wonder they have any credibility left, noticeable that for the Constellation OPNAV survivability standards were enforced.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think you guys are not understanding how Congress works. Sometimes it says "build something in my district!" and sometimes it says "you don't have enough ships so don't retire the most expensive ones to maintain!". It is not a logical process. And starting a new ship class for what is an expeditionary navy is stupid. Build more frigates or build more coast guard cutters. Done. Making new ships always costs the US an arm and a leg; we are buying a foreign design for fuck sake. Take the existing CG cutter classes and take the existing FFGX and just fucking build enough of them without creating the spiral death of a new program.
Click to expand...
If the Navy doesn't stop just saying "yes, sir, we'll do the mission" to Congress, the Navy is doomed to getting more and more jobs to do without having enough ships to do them.

This is the point where the Navy HAS TO tell Congress "we don't have the ships to do that mission, all our ships are already tasked with what you have told us are the top priority missions. So either tell us what missions you don't want done or find money for more ships."

Congress: "According to this, only a third of the ships are available for use at any one time. Is there a way to increase how many ships are available?"

Navy: "Only by making two separate crews for each ship, doubling the number of Sailors in the Navy to do it. That'd cost X much if we kept to the current wages, but we're struggling to meet manning goals with the number of Sailors we have now. So it'd probably cost more like X+50% in order to make service attractive enough to make the manning numbers we'd need."
 
Scott Kenny said:
If the Navy doesn't stop just saying "yes, sir, we'll do the mission" to Congress, the Navy is doomed to getting more and more jobs to do without having enough ships to do them.
Click to expand...
Better than what the RN has to go trought now. They retire 4 ships (2 Type 23 and the whole Albion class) and get some ~700 free sailor to fill the actual demand they have.
 
Fincantieri saying Jan 8
With the experience of the first of class being built now we have the objective of building two a year, up from the current contract which specifies three in two years
Click to expand...

Of interest it does not appear Navy has any urgency in bringing second shipyard online anytime soon.
U.S. Navy officials have mulled exercising a contractual right to buy the frigate’s technical data package, or blueprints, from Fincantieri in order to qualify an additional shipyard to build the vessel, doubling annual production to four. But Fincantieri said the Navy has yet to request the package.
Click to expand...


www.defensenews.com

Fincantieri taps welding robots to build US Navy frigates faster

The technology could help the shipbuilder achieve a pace of two Constellation-class frigates per year, according to Fincantieri CEO Pierroberto Folgiero.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Cordy said:
Fincantieri saying Jan 8


Of interest it does not appear Navy has any urgency in bringing second shipyard online anytime soon.



www.defensenews.com

Fincantieri taps welding robots to build US Navy frigates faster

The technology could help the shipbuilder achieve a pace of two Constellation-class frigates per year, according to Fincantieri CEO Pierroberto Folgiero.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
They probably will wait till the first couple of ships are out of sea trials and in active service before buying the data package and getting another yard online.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
They probably will wait till the first couple of ships are out of sea trials and in active service before buying the data package and gettign another yard online.
Click to expand...
In the interest of saving money, waiting to buy the TDP until the first ship has some sea time makes a good deal of sense. From an Industry perspective, the two big combatant yards still have a backlog of DDGs to keep them busy and Austal has multiple simultaneous projects. So, while I'm sure they'd all jump into a competition to be the second Frigate yard none of them is going to be in bad shape waiting for it. All that said, the Navy really should articulate a strategy to get to a second yard and 4 hulls a year rather than just spitballing about it.
 
Moose said:
In the interest of saving money, waiting to buy the TDP until the first ship has some sea time makes a good deal of sense. From an Industry perspective, the two big combatant yards still have a backlog of DDGs to keep them busy and Austal has multiple simultaneous projects. So, while I'm sure they'd all jump into a competition to be the second Frigate yard none of them is going to be in bad shape waiting for it. All that said, the Navy really should articulate a strategy to get to a second yard and 4 hulls a year rather than just spitballing about it.
Click to expand...
No argument here.
 
Scott Kenny said:
They probably will wait till the first couple of ships are out of sea trials and in active service before buying the data package and gettign another yard online.
Click to expand...

I think the limiting factor is Congress paying for a new yard and additional buys, and the USNs failures on the zoomies and LCS mean that they are not even going to ask for the money until they have an operational frigate in the water that seems to be hitting the specs.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think the limiting factor is Congress paying for a new yard and additional buys, and the USNs failures on the zoomies and LCS mean that they are not even going to ask for the money until they have an operational frigate in the water that seems to be hitting the specs.
Click to expand...
Could be, but just waiting till the first one or two is out of sea trials and working decently is good practice in general.
 
kqcke for you said:
Greece wants to buy 7 Connie’s with a joint ship building for it.
Click to expand...

I can’t imagine where they will get the money but if they want to open a new yard to produce them the U.S. would be remiss not to take them up on it. Presumably they want to build locally?

ETA: apparently a related local build with modifications. Rumored to be only 5000 tons but with LWT launchers, 76mm or 127mm, and hull sonar. Not sure how they get to a lighter displacement with more weapons; perhaps fuel and structural reinforcement is deleted?
 
Last edited:
Lets wait and see. After all there some countries (norway or portugal) which could buy it but may need some modification like smaller crews
 
kqcke for you said:
Smaller hull
Click to expand...

Yes, but presumably something has to be deleted to get to the lower volume. It doesn’t seem like weapons are; the article I read still mentions 4x 8 cell mk41. The only downsize in armament mentioned was 8 vs 16 AShMs.
 
Josh_TN said:
Yes, but presumably something has to be deleted to get to the lower volume. It doesn’t seem like weapons are; the article I read still mentions 4x 8 cell mk41. The only downsize in armament mentioned was 8 vs 16 AShMs.
Click to expand...
Yes Naval News Said:
"This translates to a frigate with approximately 5,000 tons displacement, a length nearing around 140 meters, equipped with a 76mm or 127mm gun, four 8-cell Mk-41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) for AAW capability, eight SSM, RAM CIWS, torpedo launchers and a comprehensive sonar suite encompassing Hull-Mounted Sonar (HMS) and Variable Depth Sonar (VDS). This naturally raises the question of whether the hull will be that of the Italian FREMM, the same design upon which the American variant was based."

So some 11m shorter and half the ASHM makes me thing that they cut of some stuff behind the first nsm launcher.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom