FFG(X)

Well that's nice, will see it that program actually works consdering the usn record in the 21st century. Still doesn't really answer my point, wich is that this frigate due to all the changes the navy did is going to cost so much that adding 16 to 32 more cells would be a drop in the bucket compared to say adding a completely unique engine arrangement that by itself forced the ship to be lengthened by 32 feet (to put that in perspective lengthening the burks to hold 128 cells was only 40 feet lol)
 
apparition13 said:
What I don't get is the decision. If "off the shelf" is a requirement, and you want Aegis, then the only sensible decision is F100/Alvaro De Bazan/Hobart since that's the only submission that includes Aegis, which means you can get away with minimal modifications and be in service the fastest. Anything else requires putting Aegis on a ship that doesn't have it, which will inevitably run into delays and overruns.
Click to expand...

You are conflating AEGIS with SPY-1. The requirement for FFG(X) was for the AEGIS combat system and the 3-faced EASR (SPY-6v3) which means no ship was going to be completely off the shelf.

But the modifications that seem to be the major sticking point on the Constellations are to do with USN damage control and stability requirements than the combat system. The F100 would probably require at least as much modification there are the FREMM baseline used for the Constellation class.
 
Were there any changes to propulsion from FREMM to Connie? I’m struggling to find anything the two have in common.
 
Moose said:
Connie will have a retractable azimuth thruster, which previous FREMMs do not. Other than that, as TomS said.
Click to expand...

Does that double as a get-me-home propulsor as in the old FFGs, or is it just for docking?
 
Moose said:
Connie will have a retractable azimuth thruster, which previous FREMMs do not.
Click to expand...
The Italian and French FREMMs have a retractable azimuth thruster - good for up to 6 knots - so that is not new.

But according to the GAO, most of the propulsion system has changed... losing most of the benefits of the parent design approach:
Table 4: Comparison of Propulsion System Components Planned for Navy Frigate and Used on the Italian Frigate https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106546.pdf
  • Gas turbine | Same—No change
  • Electric propulsion motor | Different—More powerful propulsion motors to increase speed and electric power
  • Ship service diesel generator | Different—More powerful diesel generators that have higher voltage to increase speed and electric power
  • Main reduction gear | Different—Newly designed main reduction gear to meet Navy requirements
  • Propellor | Different—Newly designed fixed pitch propellors designed to increase ruggedness and reliability
  • Machinery Centralized Control System | Different — 95% new software code
Click to expand...
(The French FREMMs also had fixed pitch propellors but it's unlikely that Fincantieri had access to the design and a new propeller was probably needed anyway given the increase in displacement)
 
TomS said:
But the modifications that seem to be the major sticking point on the Constellations are to do with USN damage control and stability requirements than the combat system.
Click to expand...
As soon as you start messing around with stability standards on a warship, you can throw out any commonality you thought you had.

Wearing the day job hat, it would be very interesting to see a comparison of USN vs Italian certification requirements. Both should be consistent with ANEP-77 Naval Ship Code. The relevant national standards are probably unclassified and in the public domain, if you know where to look.

I leave that as an exercise for someone who's (a) very interested and (b) has a lot of time on their hands.
 
Also need to comsider the fact that while the Aegis hardware needs have drop over the decades...

Its still needs/Perfer to have a hefty computer system onboard to run it. May not be a deck worth of Servers like the Ticos had, but still likely more then a few pc towers. Think its a literal few tons worth of computers still.

Add in the need phase array radar to make it really work?

The Connie was going to be a near clean sheet design to just fit that.
 
Cjc said:
Well that's nice, will see it that program actually works consdering the usn record in the 21st century. Still doesn't really answer my point, wich is that this frigate due to all the changes the navy did is going to cost so much that adding 16 to 32 more cells would be a drop in the bucket compared to say adding a completely unique engine arrangement that by itself forced the ship to be lengthened by 32 feet (to put that in perspective lengthening the burks to hold 128 cells was only 40 feet lol)
Click to expand...
Agree the cost benefit for FFG(X) to 48 makes sense, especially now the commonality with the existing FREMM design is closing on 15%. Were the USN to be smart about this they would have just built the FFG(X) as a flight One off the self, built a flight Two with some changes and so on.

That ship has literally sailed away though so we are where we are today and the most important thing is to get hulls in the water. Focusing on the LUSV makes sense as you don't need to gold plate an unmanned ship the way you do a vessel you expect to operate for 30 years.

joshjosh said:
Was this Freedom LCS variant with 32 VLS cells ever considered for FFG(X)?
View: https://youtu.be/jcYPEd0vH30?si=mN2TzWgteK4vEEBE
Click to expand...
Yes but was not selected, LM withdrew before final selection.

en.wikipedia.org

Constellation-class frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Consdering how comically low the designed macheraty on the ffx is right now (seriously non of the "blocks" on the ship are fully designed last i checked) they could probably add cells right now and not add any more delay.
 
Yellow Palace said:
As soon as you start messing around with stability standards on a warship, you can throw out any commonality you thought you had.

Wearing the day job hat, it would be very interesting to see a comparison of USN vs Italian certification requirements. Both should be consistent with ANEP-77 Naval Ship Code. The relevant national standards are probably unclassified and in the public domain, if you know where to look.

I leave that as an exercise for someone who's (a) very interested and (b) has a lot of time on their hands.
Click to expand...

The big question in my mind is where FFG(X) landed in the USN's survivability specifications. Frigates historically are Level II, with destroyers, cruisers, and carriers being Level III. Ships like MCMVs, patrol craft, and supply ships land on Level I. LCS is "Level I+" (whatever that means). And to re-answer a comment from before the Blip, the USCG National Security Cutter is also level 1 or maybe 1+. I suspect the FFG-62s are Level III or maybe somewhere between II and III.
 
Firefinder said:
My big question be What was the Base FREMM Survivablity Standards compare to the USN.

Cause that can and will explain a whole lot bout the redesigning.
Click to expand...

I've heard more stringent survivability standards. I've heard changes to the propulsion system. I've heard increased top-weight due to the US Navy's required sensor suite.

There is probably some truth to all of those.

It's clearly not a well run program though. Way late. Way over budget and not enough VLS cells for the mission.
 
Jimmo952 said:
I've heard more stringent survivability standards. I've heard changes to the propulsion system. I've heard increased top-weight due to the US Navy's required sensor suite.

There is probably some truth to all of those.
Click to expand...
Would be an interesting counter factual if the USN had insisted on a minimum-change FREMM, with flat panel SPY radar but no platform changes from the main deck down, no propulsion changes etc.

Might have looked a little like this 2017 Canadian FREMM proposal (though without some of the French looking topside design tweaks, as this was a joint Fincantieri-Naval Group submission).

canada_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
Would be an interesting counter factual if the USN had insisted on a minimum-change FREMM, with flat panel SPY radar but no platform changes from the main deck down, no propulsion changes etc.

Might have looked a little like this 2017 Canadian FREMM proposal (though without some of the French looking topside design tweaks, as this was a joint Fincantieri-Naval Group submission).

canada_1.jpg
Click to expand...

The USN just can't help itself. They are going to end up with a baby Burke.
 
Jimmo952 said:
The USN just can't help itself. They are going to end up with a baby Burke.
Click to expand...
There are good operational and logistical reasons to have every ship in the service use the same radar.

The modern threat in terms of antiship missiles alone makes it so that you need very close to a DDG's SAM loadout (remembering that roughly 1/4 of a DDG's missile cells are taken up with Tomahawks). Plus you're going to have 6-12x VL-ASROCs and 3x ESSM quadpacks (9-15 cells).

A 29-cell VLS would probably only have 6x VL-ASROCs and 3x ESSM quadpacks, leaving 20 cells for Standards. That's only enough to get you through one attack.

A 45-cell VLS would likely still only have 6x VL-ASROCs and 3x ESSM quadpacks, which leaves you ~36 cells for Standards. That might be enough to get you through two attacks.

A 61-cell VLS will probably have 9-12x VL-ASROCs and 3x ESSM quadpacks, which leaves you 46-49 cells for Standards. That will probably get you through three attacks, or two attacks if you stick a few Tomahawks in the VLS. Knowing the USN, they will want to stick a few Tomahawks into every VLS on general principles.
 
Captain Kevin Smith PEO of FFG(X) and FFG 62/Constellation at SNA 2022 emphasized it was frigate and not a destroyer and its primary role was escort / ASW, so why the call to fit Tomahawks ?

PS Constellation fitted with 16 deck launchers for NSMs
 
Scott Kenny said:
There are good operational and logistical reasons to have every ship in the service use the same radar.

The modern threat in terms of antiship missiles alone makes it so that you need very close to a DDG's SAM loadout (remembering that roughly 1/4 of a DDG's missile cells are taken up with Tomahawks). Plus you're going to have 6-12x VL-ASROCs and 3x ESSM quadpacks (9-15 cells).

A 29-cell VLS would probably only have 6x VL-ASROCs and 3x ESSM quadpacks, leaving 20 cells for Standards. That's only enough to get you through one attack.

A 45-cell VLS would likely still only have 6x VL-ASROCs and 3x ESSM quadpacks, which leaves you ~36 cells for Standards. That might be enough to get you through two attacks.

A 61-cell VLS will probably have 9-12x VL-ASROCs and 3x ESSM quadpacks, which leaves you 46-49 cells for Standards. That will probably get you through three attacks, or two attacks if you stick a few Tomahawks in the VLS. Knowing the USN, they will want to stick a few Tomahawks into every VLS on general principles.
Click to expand...
I think the ratio of ESSM to Standard will be higher, especially on the Constellations given the role isn't dedicated air defence but self protection. You are saying 29 cells which means you are factoring in the 3 cell crane but I haven't seen that referenced anywhere?

I doubt they will load Tomahawks, the ships will already have NSM which will do both ship and land targets albeit much shorter ranged. So in that context with 32 cells if they keep 6 ASROC, and I'm not certain they will even carry them given the OHP didn't, then with 26 cells remaining could easily see six cells quad packed ESSM and 20 standard.
 
Ozair said:
I think the ratio of ESSM to Standard will be higher, especially on the Constellations given the role isn't dedicated air defence but self protection. You are saying 29 cells which means you are factoring in the 3 cell crane but I haven't seen that referenced anywhere?

I doubt they will load Tomahawks, the ships will already have NSM which will do both ship and land targets albeit much shorter ranged. So in that context with 32 cells if they keep 6 ASROC, and I'm not certain they will even carry them given the OHP didn't, then with 26 cells remaining could easily see six cells quad packed ESSM and 20 standard.
Click to expand...
I would assume the final loadout is really a question of the mission. In a scenario like the red sea is something like ASROC not needed which would instead be exchanged for more SM-2's or ESSM.
 
For certain, no strike down crane in the FFG-62s. The USN hasn't fitted one since the Flight II Burkes.

Absolutely the loadout is somewhat situational, though they don't often get a change to modify it on a deployment. I suspect it will definitely lean toward ESSM rather than SM-2 or SM-6.

VL ASROC has not actually been confirmed -- it was a future capability in the original requirements documents.
 
Ozair said:
I'm not certain they will even carry them given the OHP didn't,
Click to expand...
needs to be pointed out the OHPs COULDN'T carry ASROCs.

And that was consider a Big Issue Point for the longest time after they launch by...

Well everyone as I recall.
 
Firefinder said:
needs to be pointed out the OHPs COULDN'T carry ASROCs.

And that was consider a Big Issue Point for the longest time after they launch by...

Well everyone as I recall.
Click to expand...
Sure but I felt that was somewhat self-explanatory given the OHP only had the Mk13 launcher for SM-1/Harpoon and had dispensed with the Mk 16 ASROC launcher found in the Knox and Spruance (noting some Spruance went to Mk41 and VL-ASROC). I suppose the RAN could have tried to operate VL-ASROC when they installed the Mk41 on their Adelaide class OHP but was never in the plan.
TomS said:
For certain, no strike down crane in the FFG-62s. The USN hasn't fitted one since the Flight II Burkes.
Click to expand...
I wondered if with the recent VLS reload testing on CG-65 whether it may become an option again?
TomS said:
Absolutely the loadout is somewhat situational, though they don't often get a change to modify it on a deployment. I suspect it will definitely lean toward ESSM rather than SM-2 or SM-6.
Click to expand...
Agree.
TomS said:
VL ASROC has not actually been confirmed -- it was a future capability in the original requirements documents.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
Ozair said:
Sure but I felt that was somewhat self-explanatory given the OHP only had the Mk13 launcher for SM-1/Harpoon and had dispensed with the Mk 16 ASROC launcher found in the Knox and Spruance (noting some Spruance went to Mk41 and VL-ASROC). I suppose the RAN could have tried to operate VL-ASROC when they installed the Mk41 on their Adelaide class OHP but was never in the plan.

I wondered if with the recent VLS reload testing on CG-65 whether it may become an option again?
Click to expand...
RAN OHPs were fitted with 8-cell Mk41 VLS for SM-2 only, as an interim measure of air defence following the retirement of their Charles Adam class destroyers.

The reload testing on CG-65 involves an 90s all new design reloader, which is much bigger, and structurally different, from those 3-cell reloader.
 
SK2 said:
RAN OHPs were fitted with 8-cell Mk41 VLS for SM-2 only, as an interim measure of air defence following the retirement of their Charles Adam class destroyers.
Click to expand...
Sure, which is why I said it was never in the plan...
SK2 said:
The reload testing on CG-65 involves an 90s all new design reloader, which is much bigger, and structurally different, from those 3-cell reloader.
Click to expand...
cheers.
 
Ozair said:
I wondered if with the recent VLS reload testing on CG-65 whether it may become an option again?
Click to expand...

The system under test was actually developed in the late 1980s -- no idea why people keep saying it's 30 years old; it's closer to 40. It does not require the same strikedown crane used in the older ships. It uses a traversing mechanism that is actually cross-decked over from the supply ship and returned at the end of the UNREP.
 
TomS said:
The system under test was actually developed in the late 1980s -- no idea why people keep saying it's 30 years old; it's closer to 40. It does not require the same strikedown crane used in the older ships. It uses a traversing mechanism that is actually cross-decked over from the supply ship and returned at the end of the UNREP.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay, I thought it was using the strikedown crane that hasn't been fitted to much new construction.

That does add 3 more cells that I'd assume would be filled with at least one quadpack of ESSMs.


Ozair said:
I think the ratio of ESSM to Standard will be higher, especially on the Constellations given the role isn't dedicated air defence but self protection. You are saying 29 cells which means you are factoring in the 3 cell crane but I haven't seen that referenced anywhere?
Click to expand...
I had that thought the reload-at-sea process was using the strike-down crane. My bad. Add maybe 3x more SM2s to the list, or maybe one more ESSM quadpack and 2x more SM2s.


Ozair said:
I doubt they will load Tomahawks, the ships will already have NSM which will do both ship and land targets albeit much shorter ranged. So in that context with 32 cells if they keep 6 ASROC, and I'm not certain they will even carry them given the OHP didn't, then with 26 cells remaining could easily see six cells quad packed ESSM and 20 standard.
Click to expand...
The Navy likes putting Tomahawks pretty much everywhere they can. I wouldn't expect to see more than 4x Tomahawks in a Frigate, just so that when a Frigate is the closest ship they can still send some Tomahawks to blast whoever has annoyed the US this week.

Because I'm assuming that either SM3 or SM6 needs a Strike-length missile cell so the design has at least one block of 8 cells that are strike length anyways.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Ah, okay, I thought it was using the strikedown crane that hasn't been fitted to much new construction.

That does add 3 more cells that I'd assume would be filled with at least one quadpack of ESSMs.



I had that thought the reload-at-sea process was using the strike-down crane. My bad. Add maybe 3x more SM2s to the list, or maybe one more ESSM quadpack and 2x more SM2s.



The Navy likes putting Tomahawks pretty much everywhere they can. I wouldn't expect to see more than 4x Tomahawks in a Frigate, just so that when a Frigate is the closest ship they can still send some Tomahawks to blast whoever has annoyed the US this week.

Because I'm assuming that either SM3 or SM6 needs a Strike-length missile cell so the design has at least one block of 8 cells that are strike length anyways.
Click to expand...

All of the FFG-62 cells are strike length.
But 4 Tomahawks just isn't enough to have meaningful mass for a strike. More importantly, there appears to be no intention, despite Congressional pressure, to include the Tomahawk Weapon Control System in these ships. It costs a million bucks or so, after all.

If you did want to use a frigate for minor strike, NSM does have a land-attack capability.
 
I suspect strike length is to accommodate full length SAMs. SM-6 now and possibly others in the future. SM-6 greatly expands the envelope against air, sea, and land targets. It might not always be carried but you would want the option given the flexibility. I doubt tomahawk would typically be carried on what is nominally a medium threat escort ship.
 
plus With modern computers running the combat systems.

Any new weapon type is a mere 30 minute programming update away...

with 15 of those minutes being the sailors arguing bout which harddrive they will put it on and who console is to run it.

Dont really need a dedicated set up for Tomahawks like on the older vessels, you can switch which console does what within minutes. Only need the programing to talk to the weapon and the training to USE said weapons.

And the FFG Missilemen being going to the same class as the DDGs and CGs one.

So I expect them to occasionally load up an 8 shot load, if only to ensure the crews and training stays up.
 
TomS said:
All of the FFG-62 cells are strike length.
But 4 Tomahawks just isn't enough to have meaningful mass for a strike. More importantly, there appears to be no intention, despite Congressional pressure, to include the Tomahawk Weapon Control System in these ships. It costs a million bucks or so, after all.

If you did want to use a frigate for minor strike, NSM does have a land-attack capability.
Click to expand...
If the NSMs have the reach to get there, sure.

Gotta admit that I'm surprised that they're not getting TWCS, either as a standing module or a virtualized thing.
 
Cjc said:
Well that's nice, will see it that program actually works consdering the usn record in the 21st century. Still doesn't really answer my point, wich is that this frigate due to all the changes the navy did is going to cost so much that adding 16 to 32 more cells would be a drop in the bucket compared to say adding a completely unique engine arrangement that by itself forced the ship to be lengthened by 32 feet (to put that in perspective lengthening the burks to hold 128 cells was only 40 feet lol)
Click to expand...
Additional cells is never drop in the bucket, unless you want to leave them empty. And there's very little sense in adding more boxes just for the sake of boxes.
Ammo is a significant part of cost of a combat ship, and inflation hits their cost first.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If the NSMs have the reach to get there, sure.

Gotta admit that I'm surprised that they're not getting TWCS, either as a standing module or a virtualized thing.
Click to expand...

It's possible they could virtualize it, but my understanding is it needs a secure space for data handling.

I could only find a couple of instances where small TLAM strikes (1-4 missiles) have been done, mostly decap strikes in Africa or Yemen. It's a really rare situation and I don't think having the relatively small frigate force unable to play in that is a big capability gap.
 
TomS said:
It's possible they could virtualize it, but my understanding is it needs a secure space for data handling.

I could only find a couple of instances where small TLAM strikes (1-4 missiles) have been done, mostly decap strikes in Africa or Yemen. It's a really rare situation and I don't think having the relatively small frigate force unable to play in that is a big capability gap.
Click to expand...

You have to think of the frigate as being part of and contributing to a larger flotilla, not what it can do on its own.

Just like LUSV, MUSV the vision is of distributed, networked operations.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom