FFG(X)

[H_K]

90-100% the cost of a burke. $1.2b was appropriated for the 7th ship I have the link in my previous post.

Seriously you’re comparing 2 ships built decades apart and ignoring inflation?

FY-25 DDG-51s are $2.5B a pop.
FY25 FFG-62 is $1.1B, less than half that.

It’s all in the SCN budget docs:

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/25pres/SCN_Book.pdf

 

[Ainen]

No hull-mounted sonar for one, an odd compromise for a ship with ASW as its primary mission.

VLS cells per dollar and per ton, for another. At 50% the cost of a Flt III Burke (hopefully) and 2/3rds the displacement, the current design has 1/3rd the VLS. Someone in Congress will surely point out that Flt III Burkes provide more VLS per dollar. I'll buy you a beer if they don't try to add 12 more cells to the 11th ship.

There are 16 cainsters NSMs, so still 1/2. With much better capability for small-medium targets in congested environments.
Constellation class isn't built as a "Miniburke". It isn't US answer to 052D, it's a frigate.
And the moment it'll turn into miniburke, it'll start threatening proper ones; it was very visibly something USN tried to avoid, separating two classes as much as possible.

Out of all things, last thing USN lacks is number of VLS. Point of concern is reloads - interceptors are much harder to produce than boxes.

Finally, while boxcount is less - given significantly lesser capability of sensor suit and probably larger emphasis on non-fleet action (again, frigate!) - just fit more ESSM.

 

[Jimmo952]

One of the things the US Navy was trying to achieve is a ship with the ability for independent action as well a performing as part of the battlegroup for a cost 50% of a Burke.

The Navy made the case that the sensor and weapons fit of the FFGX was the minimum for being able to achieve those goals.

People may disagree with that but that is what the Navy was trying to do.

 

[Firefinder]

Every new design the USN has built in the last 30 years has been truncated after years of cost overruns, delays, bad press, and design issues

And this is a bold face lie. Most of the Ships design in the last 30 years, or rather after the Burkes, have had their Run their design run completed or EXTEND.

The San Antonias, Design in the late ninties and was expect to have 12 ships. Is now up to 13 with 11 more on the way for a total of 24.

The Virginia, was to be a 20 ship class, 24 in the water with money for 10 earmark for them and a plan 32 more above that for 66.

The Fords, plan for 10 with 2 in the water and 2 with steel in the dock. That class has the worse press on this list and it still going on strong.

The Expeditionary Transfer Docks was originally to have 4 hulls, and there now plan for 8 with 7 already in the water.

The America class LHAs are to have 11 hulls, with 2 in the water and 2 in the dock. And Im pretty sure it was originally to be 10 hulls with the 11th getting added after the Bonhomme fire.

The Lewis and Clark Dry cargo ships got all plan 14 commissioned.

While the John Lewis oiler has 5 of the 20 in the water, with 3 on the ways.

Those are the class off the type of my head. Even if you cut out the two Replenishment ship classes that still 5 very successful post Burke classes of combat ready ships. With 3 likely 4 of those getting their lines extended.

The LCS and Zumwalt Snafus are on much Congress penny pinching causing issues, LCS modules are all on them, as it was on the Navy not knowing what it needed and failing to predict the future. As is only one of those classes can be called worthless, and that the Freedoms due to their gearing issues laming them which is totally on the shipbuilder there. The Independence been carving out a niche for itself in being a general go getter for second line duties. While the Zumwalts been mostly love by their crews with the biggest issue been their Maintenace set up, need to call up a contractor for simple crew level fixes*, and even lamed as they are they are still a match for the Burkes.


*Also the fact that you have less then 150 bodies to do the work of 300 plus on a ship bout 40 percent LARGER then a Burke or Tico which are already know to need more bodies. Basically you have 100 manhours of Maintenace work per day but only 5 bodies to do it with instead of 10. Before adding the 8 hours of training the navy need and the of paperwork leaving all the crew having no time to even sleep.

Edit: Oh Forgot the Spearhead Class with been chugging along to it planned 19 just fine, with 14 in the water 2 in the docks. And they are looking to add several modified as Hosptial ships to replace the two converted tankers. Albeit that did start out as an Army Program to replace their LSVs and like...

 

[johnpjones1775]

How much do you think Burkes are going for these days? Sure ain't $1.2b, closer to $2.5b.

A FIII may be more, but a II or IIA is $1.2b, maybe a bit more accounting for inflation.

Regardless, $1b+ for a ship class that’s supposed to be affordable is unsustainable.

 

[TomS]

A FIII may be more, but a II or IIA is $1.2b, maybe a bit more accounting for inflation.

Regardless, $1b+ for a ship class that’s supposed to be affordable is unsustainable.

You cannot buy a Flt IIA now, so you are comparing apples to oranges.

Also, the last IIA cost roughly $1.9 billion in 2017 dollars

 

[Sintra]

A FIII may be more, but a II or IIA is $1.2b, maybe a bit more accounting for inflation.

Regardless, $1b+ for a ship class that’s supposed to be affordable is unsustainable.

The exact numbers are public.

For FY 2025 the US Navy is acquiring two AB Flight III for 7071.3 million $.
More than 3.5 billion for every new AB flight III

"Program acquisition cost by major weapon system" doc page 6-5

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) > Budget Materials > Budget2025

Cheers

 

[H_K]

Also, the last IIA cost roughly $1.9 billion in 2017 dollars

Yep, there was about a ~10% cost difference between a Flight IIA and Flight III when they made the switchover in FY15 - FY18.

So even if you remove $200-$250M from the cost of FY25 Flight III you're still looking at $2.25 billion for a Flight IIA... assuming you could still build it. That's still double the cost of an FFG-62.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But given their record, I can see the USN pushing for major design changes…

Likely.

Most of the shipyards on the Great Lakes have outright REFUSED to bid on Navy contracts since the USN likes to make design changes to places that have already been built. (IMO I'd bid but put absolutely punishing costs for changes to areas already made. Hundreds of millions of dollars, and increasing by 100mil per change. 4th change to an area already built? Half a billion dollars.)

With the potential of the ships having to sacrifice speed to maintain weight for future growth could be a huge factor in truncating the order since the USN and fanbois are obsessed with escorts having to be capable of 30+ knots.

Because a carrier needs to maintain about 30 knots wind over deck speed for flight ops. If there's no wind, a carrier needs to do 30 knots.

 

[that_person]

I think it’s worth noting that every USN shipbuilding program seems to have issues.
Burke was delivered two years late.
The Spruance-class was notorious for allegedly costing too much, and Litton having production issues.
The Tarawa program had to be completely refinanced from the original fixed price contract.
The Seawolf program was a complete disaster.

It should also be noted that both the Zumwalt and LCS development models were revolutionary, not evolutionary. They represent dramatic departures from the norm, and thatd a risk the Navy fully acknowledged. I’d say the gambles paid off though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Seawolf program was a complete disaster.

Casualty of the Peace Dividend...

 

[Byeman]

Modern cargo ships aren't all that slow. The "slow boat from China" is a 4 week delivery time. 1 week to load your cargo container onto a ship,

1-2 days except for the huge ones.

 

[Scott Kenny]

1-2 days except for the huge ones.

There's anything but ones that take a week to load left in service?

25,000container ships pay for themselves in the first load.

 

[johnpjones1775]

One of the things the US Navy was trying to achieve is a ship with the ability for independent action as well a performing as part of the battlegroup for a cost 50% of a Burke.

The Navy made the case that the sensor and weapons fit of the FFGX was the minimum for being able to achieve those goals.

People may disagree with that but that is what the Navy was trying to do.

That may be what they’re trying to do, but they way over estimated. SPY is definitely not the minimum for that.

You cannot buy a Flt IIA now, so you are comparing apples to oranges.

Also, the last IIA cost roughly $1.9 billion in 2017 dollars

i mean you literally can buy one if you make the order.
So my bad, 63% of a Burke FIIA for 1/3 of the VLS…

 

[johnpjones1775]

Likely.

Most of the shipyards on the Great Lakes have outright REFUSED to bid on Navy contracts since the USN likes to make design changes to places that have already been built. (IMO I'd bid but put absolutely punishing costs for changes to areas already made. Hundreds of millions of dollars, and increasing by 100mil per change. 4th change to an area already built? Half a billion dollars.)




Because a carrier needs to maintain about 30 knots wind over deck speed for flight ops. If there's no wind, a carrier needs to do 30 knots.

And? That has nothing to do with escort speeds.

A carrier isn’t outrunning a 25kt escort’s umbrella of protection in the time it takes to launch their entire airwing. They might outrun an escort’s ESSM range in something like 8 hours with a 5kt speed difference.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And? That has nothing to do with escort speeds.

A carrier isn’t outrunning a 25kt escort’s umbrella of protection in the time it takes to launch their entire airwing. They might outrun an escort’s ESSM range in something like 8 hours with a 5kt speed difference.

Escorts need to be able to exceed the speed of the craft they are guarding, so that when the carrier makes a turn, the escort can either maintain or relatively quickly regain position in the formation.

 

[TomS]

i mean you literally can buy one if you make the order.
So my bad, 63% of a Burke FIIA for 1/3 of the VLS…

Just over half the cost for half as many missiles, total (VLS plus NSM). For just over the price of one DDG, you get the ability to be in two places at once. That's a very good deal, IMO.

 

[Byeman]

There's anything but ones that take a week to load left in service?

25,000container ships pay for themselves in the first load.

Hundreds. But even bigs really don't take a week. Right now there is a 140k ton ship leaving Savannah port that arrived 1700 on 27 Feb and left this morning at 1000. I have stayed at hotels at the port and large ships don't spend much time there.

 

[Ainen]

That may be what they’re trying to do, but they way over estimated. SPY is definitely not the minimum for that.

Or is it? SPY-6 is modular, and constellation ones are smallest.
Caveat, of course, that it's 3-array combination.
But it's the literal cheapest way to have long duration, volume, 360 picture of your surroundings.

All heavyweight rotating arrays are electromechanical devices. With that comes maintenance and failures.

 

[Josh_TN]

Escorts need to be able to exceed the speed of the craft they are guarding, so that when the carrier makes a turn, the escort can either maintain or relatively quickly regain position in the formation.

Perry had issues hitting 30knt; rated for 29. They still got used in CVBGs IiRC. You can accept lower performance if you accept a lower rate of advance.

 

[Josh_TN]

That may be what they’re trying to do, but they way over estimated. SPY is definitely not the minimum for that.

i mean you literally can buy one if you make the order.
So my bad, 63% of a Burke FIIA for 1/3 of the VLS…

SPY-6 is probably the minimum for independent operations now adays, and the commonality of training and maintenance across platforms and production at scale of the TR blocks probably cancels out any savings from a downgrade. The only other off the shelf replacement I can think of it’s the SSDS, which is kinda lacking for independent steaming.

 

[TomS]

Perry had issues hitting 30knt; rated for 29. They still got used in CVBGs IiRC. You can accept lower performance if you accept a lower rate of advance.

They did, but mainly because there were no convoys to escort at the time (barring the Persian Gulf)

 

[Josh_TN]

I would also add that lifecycle cost is probably more relevant than build cost, and the savings over a Burke are pretty dramatic as well.

 

[Jimmo952]

That may be what they’re trying to do, but they way over estimated. SPY is definitely not the minimum for that.

i mean you literally can buy one if you make the order.
So my bad, 63% of a Burke FIIA for 1/3 of the VLS…

The newer SPYs are designed to be able to communicate and cooperate with one another giving an expansive, cohesive view of the battle space.

I can see that as a big advantage, providing it works.

 

[Josh_TN]

The newer SPYs are designed to be able to communicate and cooperate with one another giving an expansive, cohesive view of the battle space.

I can see that as a big advantage, providing it works.

I would guess that any sPY-6 can link to NIFCA when in a larger formation.

 

[yeetmahboi]

The fixation with SPY-6 being over the top is strange. The USN had SPS-49, a powerful air search radar, on practically all its combat ships including the Perry's which are exemplar of that era's small escort classes. Plus standardizing on a common array type was something the USN has always pursued in fear of the Society's long range ELINT that could have allowed them to discriminate between major combatants within a SAG.

 

[H_K]

Just over half the cost for half as many missiles, total (VLS plus NSM). For just over the price of one DDG, you get the ability to be in two places at once. That's a very good deal, IMO.

Not to mention you get much more than 2x the ASW capability with a pair of FFG-62s instead of a single DDG.

The submarine that’s going to sink your carrier doesn’t care how many VLS or how fancy an SPY your DDGs have. It will be scared sh**less by an escort they can’t hear with a towed sonar that can reach out beyond their ability to detect or engage your carrier.

Basically you need both, and there’s an unhealthy (and very USN-centric) obsession with VLS counts (because it’s such an easy metric) that people end up ignoring all the other threat scenarios that an escort’s capability should be measured against.

 

[Firefinder]

Perry had issues hitting 30knt; rated for 29. They still got used in CVBGs IiRC. You can accept lower performance if you accept a lower rate of advance.

They did, but mainly because there were no convoys to escort at the time (barring the Persian Gulf)

It was more along the lines of.

Crap we F up our math and dont have enough ships to escort cvns. Throw the Shitty FFG in the line til we got enough burkes!

And most of the time The Perrys got left behind. Cause they were shitty designs.

Leaving out their infamously bad weapons set up... No Asw for a asw frigate. Then you had the poor gear.

They were design to be basically vacuum seal around their gear with very little in the room for upgrading cause they were design for 15 years and change. The fact that the Navy used them for nearly thirty is more an indictment of their desperation then anything.

Eyeah the Perry escorting the CVN was HATED by the USN commanders and they WILL not accept a repeat if they could.


So the 32 knot requirements stays.

 

[Josh_TN]

Clearly not, unless no FFGX touches a CSG. I think that unlikely. I’m sure they will make it work.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The newer SPYs are designed to be able to communicate and cooperate with one another giving an expansive, cohesive view of the battle space.

I can see that as a big advantage, providing it works.

So…basically datalink…which we already had…

 

[johnpjones1775]

The fixation with SPY-6 being over the top is strange. The USN had SPS-49, a powerful air search radar, on practically all its combat ships including the Perry's which are exemplar of that era's small escort classes. Plus standardizing on a common array type was something the USN has always pursued in fear of the Society's long range ELINT that could have allowed them to discriminate between major combatants within a SAG.

SPY radar probably the single larger investment in ships.

I’ve looked but I can’t find clarification if it’s $100m for all arrays or per panel. If it’s per panel any ship with 4 SPY panels will cost nearly as much as an LCS just for the radar.

If we want to grow our fleet which is what the USN and congress both claim is a goal, then we need to stop spending a billion dollars or more per hull.

Sea giraffe is a fraction of the cost, and can still see like 200 miles out, and track 100+ targets at once. That’s plenty good for a combatant is meant to be smaller and cheaper than a burke.

 

[Josh_TN]

So…basically datalink…which we already had…

CEC and NIFCA are *not* just a datalink.

 

[Josh_TN]

SPY radar probably the single larger investment in ships.

I’ve looked but I can’t find clarification if it’s $100m for all arrays or per panel. If it’s per panel any ship with 4 SPY panels will cost nearly as much as an LCS just for the radar.

If we want to grow our fleet which is what the USN and congress both claim is a goal, then we need to stop spending a billion dollars or more per hull.

Sea giraffe is a fraction of the cost, and can still see like 200 miles out, and track 100+ targets at once. That’s plenty good for a combatant is meant to be smaller and cheaper than a burke.

I think it’s worth pointing out that the question is less about SPY-6 vs Sea Giraffe and more about Aegis Baseline 10 vs Ship Self Defense System mk 2. Those are the two off the shelf, in production combat systems - chose one. Aegis comes with all the bells and whistles and allows integration with a larger fleet; SSDS is basically a stand alone system that coordinates and automates a ships soft and hard kill defenses and is found on pretty much anything sans Aegis. I would argue that a system only capable of self defense is too thin in capability to serve as an independent escort - so the only other off the shelf, no new development option is Aegis/SPY-6.

*the Zummies use some kind of one off oddball combat system, but like older versions of Aegis it is out of production. AFAIK the rest of the fleet uses a version of Aegis or SSDS, with only the latest versions still produced.

ETA: it’s also worth pointing out that as Burke I types retire, they will be replaced with Connies at best one per one. So to keep anything like the current area air defense capability, FFGX had to have a more or less complete combat system.

 

[yeetmahboi]

CEC and NIFCA are *not* just a datalink.

Plus, people are throwing out data links like if they're some sort of magical solutions to the question of which radar fit is appropriate. Except that the USN has datalinks since the 60s, they had half a century to ponder the theoretical implications of datalinks and still select EASR for the Connies.

 

[Ainen]

Sea giraffe is a fraction of the cost, and can still see like 200 miles out, and track 100+ targets at once. That’s plenty good for a combatant is meant to be smaller and cheaper than a burke.

That's a massive fall in capability. Below threshold for independent operations in hostile environment.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I think it’s worth pointing out that the question is less about SPY-6 vs Sea Giraffe and more about Aegis Baseline 10 vs Ship Self Defense System mk 2. Those are the two off the shelf, in production combat systems - chose one. Aegis comes with all the bells and whistles and allows integration with a larger fleet; SSDS is basically a stand alone system that coordinates and automates a ships soft and hard kill defenses and is found on pretty much anything sans Aegis. I would argue that a system only capable of self defense is too thin in capability to serve as an independent escort - so the only other off the shelf, no new development option is Aegis/SPY-6.

*the Zummies use some kind of one off oddball combat system, but like older versions of Aegis it is out of production. AFAIK the rest of the fleet uses a version of Aegis or SSDS, with only the latest versions still produced.

ETA: it’s also worth pointing out that as Burke I types retire, they will be replaced with Connies at best one per one. So to keep anything like the current area air defense capability, FFGX had to have a more or less complete combat system.

The system is capable of detecting and tracking threats hundreds of miles away…the only limit on AAW capability at that point would be the missile load.

If it has sea giraffe, illuminators, and SMs it can manage area defense at the very least depending on which type of SM it has.

I agree it’s not about SPY vs sea giraffe specifically, it’s about ridiculously priced systems vs more reasonably priced systems.

 

[Ainen]

The system is capable of detecting and tracking threats hundreds of miles away…the only limit on AAW capability at that point would be the missile load.

If it has sea giraffe, illuminators, and SMs it can manage area defense at the very least depending on which type of SM it has.

It can't.

Sea giraffe does 24 rpm max (update time 2.5s), i.e. even at full rate it can't provide 360 deg simultaneous fire control. Only in sector mode(120 field, but really more like 100).

At the same time, it isn't really built to work for extended period of time, and is weaker than SPY-6v2.

It's good if it's on Visby or even Soleimani, which are 600t class vessels.

It isn't as good for Constellation, which is absolutely expected to operate on its own, defend convoys in hostile waters(say, Gulf) as it's main (maybe only) defense, and more.

For bigger ships with longer, more independent mission profiles, by modern standards, you really want to complement it with another radar, just to avoid both downsides(usually it's small x-band array, optimized for low altitude search).

Or, at least, install a twin-faced array(3 arrays like SPY-6v3 are more expensive, but will let you throw mechanics out, which is a major thing).

Better, of course, both.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It can't.

Sea giraffe does 24 rpm max (update time 2.5s), i.e. even at full rate it can't provide 360 deg simultaneous fire control. Only in sector mode(120 field, but really more like 100).

At the same time, it isn't really built to work for extended period of time, and is weaker than SPY-6v2.

It's good if it's on Visby or even Soleimani, which are 600t class vessels.

It isn't as good for Constellation, which is absolutely expected to operate on its own, defend convoys in hostile waters(say, Gulf) as it's main (maybe only) defense, and more.

For bigger ships with longer, more independent mission profiles, by modern standards, you really want to complement it with another radar, just to avoid both downsides(usually it's small x-band array, optimized for low altitude search).

Or, at least, install a twin-faced array(3 arrays like SPY-6v3 are more expensive, but will let you throw mechanics out, which is a major thing).

Better, of course, both.

I never said it could provide full 360 degree coverage at all times, but it is indeed good enough for area defense, especially for a ship intended for ASW work.

Sea giraffe is indeed just fine for escorting convoys and if it’s part of a CSG datalink from the other ships in the group making that deficiency not an issue.

Again this is the problem with the USN, and USN fanbois. Not every ship needs all the best doodads and whuzzits and whizbangs.

Trying to make a cheap convoy ASW escort just as effective as a burke, is like trying to make every grunt as effective as a green beret or a SEAL. It’s just not feasible or realistic.

If we want basically a 300 ship navy we can’t afford 120 Burkes, 12 DDGXs, and 68 baby Burkes.

 

[Ainen]

I never said it could provide full 360 degree coverage at all times, but it is indeed good enough for area defense, especially for a ship intended for ASW work.

Sea giraffe is indeed just fine for escorting convoys and if it’s part of a CSG datalink from the other ships in the group making that deficiency not an issue.

Again this is the problem with the USN, and USN fanbois. Not every ship needs all the best doodads and whuzzits and whizbangs.

Trying to make a cheap convoy ASW escort just as effective as a burke, is like trying to make every grunt as effective as a green beret or a SEAL. It’s just not feasible or realistic.

But Constellation is not "cheap ASW escort" by any means. It isn't even all that ASW.
And its missions absolutely require it to maintain that long term 360 volume search/fire control.

 

[Josh_TN]

I never said it could provide full 360 degree coverage at all times, but it is indeed good enough for area defense, especially for a ship intended for ASW work.

Sea giraffe is indeed just fine for escorting convoys and if it’s part of a CSG datalink from the other ships in the group making that deficiency not an issue.

Again this is the problem with the USN, and USN fanbois. Not every ship needs all the best doodads and whuzzits and whizbangs.

Trying to make a cheap convoy ASW escort just as effective as a burke, is like trying to make every grunt as effective as a green beret or a SEAL. It’s just not feasible or realistic.

If we want basically a 300 ship navy we can’t afford 120 Burkes, 12 DDGXs, and 68 baby Burkes.

I do not think the SSDS is even capable of using SM-2. So are you proposing a new version of SSDS is developed for FFGX?