FFG(X)

[johnpjones1775]

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?

…you do know that’s not the only option right?

 

[yeetmahboi]

SSDS does have a director for ESSM in its current library so integrating SPG-62 shouldn't be too tough a job.

The current LCSes use COMBATSS-21 which AFAIK only employs FnF weapon ie SEARAM and CAMM on MMSC. Given that the USN has a historical preference for on board self targeting even if employing SM-6 I still think the USN would want AEGIS, plus knowing the Connies would be doing convoy escorts and crossing Houthi territory the call for a robust AAW/BMD capabilitiy is definitely validated.

 

[Josh_TN]

…you do know that’s not the only option right?

What do you suggest?

 

[johnpjones1775]

SSDS does have a director for ESSM in its current library so integrating SPG-62 shouldn't be too tough a job.

The current LCSes use COMBATSS-21 which AFAIK only employs FnF weapon ie SEARAM and CAMM on MMSC. Given that the USN has a historical preference for on board self targeting even if employing SM-6 I still think the USN would want AEGIS, plus knowing the Connies would be doing convoy escorts and crossing Houthi territory the call for a robust AAW/BMD capabilitiy is definitely validated.

Good thing combat systems are digital, and can be updated like a phone, or a video game.
CAMMs are already able to reach out 50+ miles, so yeah no problem.

 

[johnpjones1775]

What do you suggest?

SSDS and COMBATSS-21 are fine options, great thing about digital systems they can patched and updated.

I’m not a tech guy, but I’m almost positive it’ll be cheaper to write a software update for either system, than to build 20+ FFGs with 3-4 SPY arrays.

 

[H_K]

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

DDG’s AMDR radar and AEGIS combat system cost much more than the FFG-62 equivalents. From the FY25 SCN budget docs:

DDG-51
$137M AMDR
$227M AEGIS
$364M total

FFG-62
$65M EASR
$50M AEGIS
$115M total

The same goes for other items of the combat suite, especially SEWIP ($83M vs $13M!).

 

[yeetmahboi]

The most and second most powerful navy are both building large frigates with hefty sensors. I think their approach is validated. A large design has the growth margins for future upgrades, can store enough consumables and fuel for long range ops and can fit the sort of amenities looked at to improve crew comfort. I don't see what does a smaller, MMSC like design can do that a Connie cannot. And for sure the one with the larger growth margin built in is going to last longer in service reducing future R&D overhead.

 

[Josh_TN]

SSDS and COMBATSS-21 are fine options, great thing about digital systems they can patched and updated.

I’m not a tech guy, but I’m almost positive it’ll be cheaper to write a software update for either system, than to build 20+ FFGs with 3-4 SPY arrays.

OK, so creating a SSDS mk2 mod7, and likely having an inferior ability to track and engage multiple targets and deleting any cooperative engagement capabilities with other ships. That seems like a steep trade off to me. I think the Aegis/SPY-6 Lite they came up with rather optimal.

 

[johnpjones1775]

K

OK, so creating a SSDS mk2 mod7, and likely having an inferior ability to track and engage multiple targets and deleting any cooperative engagement capabilities with other ships. That seems like a steep trade off to me. I think the Aegis/SPY-6 Lite they came up with rather optimal.

again cooperative engagement is part of what data link deals with.

We can’t afford the fleet size goal if our ‘affordable’ escorts are a billion fucking dollars.
It simply won’t ever happen.

So yes a software update for SSDS or COMBATSS-21 is more than a reasonable option, it’s literally the only realistic option.

As has already been said, the ships are already likely to see a massive cut to the order because of the navy’s obsession with 30kt speed and the likelihood they’re going to sacrifice speed to save space and weight for future proofing, and last I checked neither FREMM variant currently in service has a 30kt speed, so if they sacrifice speed it will be lucky to be making 25kts

 

[johnpjones1775]

The most and second most powerful navy are both building large frigates with hefty sensors. I think their approach is validated. A large design has the growth margins for future upgrades, can store enough consumables and fuel for long range ops and can fit the sort of amenities looked at to improve crew comfort. I don't see what does a smaller, MMSC like design can do that a Connie cannot. And for sure the one with the larger growth margin built in is going to last longer in service reducing future R&D overhead.

No one said anything about size?
Steel for size is almost irrelevant to the overall cost of a ship.

Long range ops were done with 1000ton wickes DDs. Size means very little about range or endurance. USCG cutter range and endurance puts USN ships to shame.
Legend- 12k nmi range up to 90 endurance, 4600tons.
Burke-4400nmi, minimum 8300 tons.

 

[Firefinder]

It also need to be point out that the Connies FREMM Sisters ships both have basically the same level of fit out that they are getting RELETIVELY to their home nations fleets.

Comparably both the French and the Italians choose systems that gave the same abilities compare to their DDGs that the Connie does to the Burke.

The Connie looks like it has more cause compare to the Horizons the Burke is that much more

As has already been said, the ships are already likely to see a massive cut to the order because of the navy’s obsession with 30kt speed and the likelihood they’re going to sacrifice speed to save space and weight for future proofing, and last I checked neither FREMM variant currently in service has a 30kt speed, so if they sacrifice speed it will be lucky to be making 25kts

Better start rechecking you information.

The Italian version is started to do better then 30 knots, while the French is listed similar at 29. With the Former French owned Egyptian ones being noted to do 30 knots easily.

It Very VERY likley that the Connies are 30 knoters themselves.

Don't know where the FREMMS can't do 30 knots came from but hits extremely wrong.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It also need to be point out that the Connies FREMM Sisters ships both have basically the same level of fit out that they are getting RELETIVELY to their home nations fleets.

Comparably both the French and the Italians choose systems that gave the same abilities compare to their DDGs that the Connie does to the Burke.

The Connie looks like it has more cause compare to the Horizons the Burke is that much more

Better start rechecking you information.

The Italian version is started to do better then 30 knots, while the French is listed similar at 29. With the Former French owned Egyptian ones being noted to do 30 knots easily.

It Very VERY likley that the Connies are 30 knoters themselves.

Don't know where the FREMMS can't do 30 knots came from but hits extremely wrong.

Based off of wiki, I admit i remembered partially wrong.

The French version is listed as ‘in excess of 27kts’ which means almost guaranteed less than 30.
The Italian variant does however say ‘in excess of 30kts’

So that was my bad memory.

If they are equal in speed to the Italian variant it likely means a sacrifice of speed will make them borderline 30 at best, but some where closer to 25-28kts. Especially considering they’re going to have something like 1100 more tons to move through the water than their European cousins.

 

[Josh_TN]

K

again cooperative engagement is part of what data link deals with.

Again, a datalink is *not* cooperative engagement. CEC is one CB platform being able engage another platforms target track without using own sensors, and SSDS does not give you that in either direction. An FFGX picket can provide early warning, and a Burke can provide a bigger picture in the other direction, but neither is providing a target track to the other. That is the “self defense” part of the SSDS moniker. For an individual ship steaming alone, this does not matter. In any larger formation this becomes a significant drop in task force capability.

 

[Firefinder]

If they are equal in speed to the Italian variant it likely means a sacrifice of speed will make them borderline 30 at best, but some where closer to 25-28kts. Especially considering they’re going to have something like 1100 more tons to move through the water than their European

They are not equal in power at all and that one of the big things for ships speed.

The Connies are to have nearly 2 MW more power to the props. The Italians have a 2.5 megawatts motor turning each of their 2 Props compare to the USN 3.4 MW per props. Thats over 1300 shaft horsepower per propeller.

Plus since it lacks the big old sonar dome on the bow, Which is basically the most un-hydrodynamic you can put on the ship meaning the hull cuts through the water easier. The navies have tried to make the Domes act like Bulbous bows but its basically a trade off between speed and sonar performance, and most navys perfer sonar performance. Result in the dome doing more to hinder speed then help it. That with the better power means it is VERY LIKELY to make 30 knots easily.

The USN has done it homeworks and ensure it can keep with carriers like it wanted.

 

[johnpjones1775]

No matter how you look at it, FREMM was the wrong base design choice.
Should have been HII’s offering.

 

[johnpjones1775]

They are not equal in power at all and that one of the big things for ships speed.

The Connies are to have nearly 2 MW more power to the props. The Italians have a 2.5 megawatts motor turning each of their 2 Props compare to the USN 3.4 MW per props. Thats over 1300 shaft horsepower per propeller.

Plus since it lacks the big old sonar dome on the bow, Which is basically the most un-hydrodynamic you can put on the ship meaning the hull cuts through the water easier. The navies have tried to make the Domes act like Bulbous bows but its basically a trade off between speed and sonar performance, and most navys perfer sonar performance. Result in the dome doing more to hinder speed then help it. That with the better power means it is VERY LIKELY to make 30 knots easily.

The USN has done it homeworks and ensure it can keep with carriers like it wanted.

And the navy is already considering cutting its speed, so it probably won’t be able to do 30kts.
But again, keeping up with the carriers at full speed is stupid as fuck as a requirement, because no surface ship can do so. CVNs outpace Burkes in acceleration, max speed, and endurance at speed.

Like i said previously it would take a carrier moving at full speed hours to outrun an escort’s ESSM coverage let alone longer range SAMs.

 

[Ainen]

The most and second most powerful navy are both building large frigates with hefty sensors. I think their approach is validated. A large design has the growth margins for future upgrades, can store enough consumables and fuel for long range ops and can fit the sort of amenities looked at to improve crew comfort. I don't see what does a smaller, MMSC like design can do that a Connie cannot. And for sure the one with the larger growth margin built in is going to last longer in service reducing future R&D overhead.

For China it's more interesting, as they really have all 3 tiers in 054B, 054A(still in production), and 056A(360 radar, shared with CG cutters).
Even 054B installation is less ambitious than Spy-6 on Constellation, and is overall more in line with norms.

But realistically, really hefty sensors on frigates isn't a sign of a first tier navy.

 

[Firefinder]

CVNs outpace Burkes in acceleration, max speed, and endurance at speed.

Actually they don't for the first two anymore.

The Stories of CVNs outpacing their escorts came from the time when Steam power ships was still common in the fleet. Those had terrible acceleration due to the need to baby the boilers lest you risk an explosion. A nuke ship is far more able to raise pressure then oil burners were. But there is still a decent lag team between the throttle man opening up the throttle and the ship picking up speed.

But when the Spruances hit the fleet, they routinely out accelerated the Carriers cause you can just slammed the throttle forward and have the FULL POWER of the turbines immediately to the props. With those often need to feather their propellers, both them the ticos and the Burkes have adjustable props, to allow the carrier to catch up.

This is still true for this day for the Burkes. The only time they get left behind in acceration is when the sea state is bad enough to force them to limit themselves. Which the CVN being F U size don't care bout, and those Sea states are on the side of being uncommon in good weather.

And a few years back the Nimitz's started to outright fail their speed trials due to all the weight they put on from the gear. The Ford manage to bring it back to snuff but even so she still gets out done by the Burkes in acceration.

Like no really the Burkes have HALF THE HORSEPOWER OF THE CVNS on a hull a not even a tenth of the size. They are extremely speedy little things.

Endurance is the only one the CVN can claim these days. And only a soon to be court martial fool outruns his screen.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Actually they don't for the first two anymore.

The Stories of CVNs outpacing their escorts came from the time when Steam power ships was still common in the fleet. Those had terrible acceleration due to the need to baby the boilers lest you risk an explosion. A nuke ship is far more able to raise pressure then oil burners were. But there is still a decent lag team between the throttle man opening up the throttle and the ship picking up speed.

But when the Spruances hit the fleet, they routinely out accelerated the Carriers cause you can just slammed the throttle forward and have the FULL POWER of the turbines immediately to the props. With those often need to feather their propellers, both them the ticos and the Burkes have adjustable props, to allow the carrier to catch up.

This is still true for this day for the Burkes. The only time they get left behind in acceration is when the sea state is bad enough to force them to limit themselves. Which the CVN being F U size don't care bout, and those Sea states are on the side of being uncommon in good weather.

And a few years back the Nimitz's started to outright fail their speed trials due to all the weight they put on from the gear. The Ford manage to bring it back to snuff but even so she still gets out done by the Burkes in acceration.

Like no really the Burkes have HALF THE HORSEPOWER OF THE CVNS on a hull a not even a tenth of the size. They are extremely speedy little things.

Endurance is the only one the CVN can claim these days. And only a soon to be court martial fool outruns his screen.

No, it’s still the case, or at least was as of 2015, when my ship did it’s second drag race with the bush on our second deployment.

 

[yeetmahboi]

No one said anything about size?
Steel for size is almost irrelevant to the overall cost of a ship.

And yet you had argued for a less capable frigate on other topics constantly no? A ship only large enough to accomodate Sea Giraffe?

Long range ops were done with 1000ton wickes DDs. Size means very little about range or endurance. USCG cutter range and endurance puts USN ships to shame.
Legend- 12k nmi range up to 90 endurance, 4600tons.
Burke-4400nmi, minimum 8300 tons.

WW2 has no bearing on today's ships. Comparing two ships designed to different requirements is flawed logic. A Legend can't even hold a pair of SPY-1 face and a single director.

For China it's more interesting, as they really have all 3 tiers in 054B, 054A(still in production), and 056A(360 radar, shared with CG cutters).
Even 054B installation is less ambitious than Spy-6 on Constellation, and is overall more in line with norms.

I doubt that 054B is less ambitious as you say. The whole design is much more enclose to ensure stealth. Integrating a dual band radar on a single masthead for another. The thing is that PLAN constantly iterate ships so none of their designs have the same growth margin standards as those in the USN. And protection/accomodation standards?

But realistically, really hefty sensors on frigates isn't a sign of a first tier navy.

None have argue so. But if the PLAN is not a first rate navy then none ever come close to that title.

 

[TomS]

No matter how you look at it, FREMM was the wrong base design choice.
Should have been HII’s offering.

We know literally nothing about what HII actually offered. All we have is speculation.

 

[johnpjones1775]

And yet you had argued for a less capable frigate on other topics constantly no? A ship only large enough to accomodate Sea Giraffe?

WW2 has no bearing on today's ships. Comparing two ships designed to different requirements is flawed logic. A Legend can't even hold a pair of SPY-1 face and a single director.

I doubt that 054B is less ambitious as you say. The whole design is much more enclose to ensure stealth. Integrating a dual band radar on a single masthead for another. The thing is that PLAN constantly iterate ships so none of their designs have the same growth margin standards as those in the USN. And protection/accomodation standards?

None have argue so. But if the PLAN is not a first rate navy then none ever come close to that title.

Other topics have nothing to do with this discussion.

You equated size to range which is a false equivalency. Spy arrays are also irrelevant to the discussion of range. Take the arrays off of a burke there will be no noticeable increase in range.

 

[johnpjones1775]

We know literally nothing about what HII actually offered. All we have is speculation.

The only option they had to offer was their patrol frigate, so it’s not really speculation.

And considering we already essentially have the production line up and running, we would have avoided pretty much all of these issues.

 

[Ainen]

I doubt that 054B is less ambitious as you say. The whole design is much more enclose to ensure stealth. Integrating a dual band radar on a single masthead for another. The thing is that PLAN constantly iterate ships so none of their designs have the same growth margin standards as those in the USN. And protection/accomodation standards?

Different things.

You're talking about how state of the art (how advanced design is). Which 054B is, reflecting level of Chinese electronic industry.

But main sensor setup itself is reserved, more “economical” than Constellation.
There are way more lavish designs than either. And the point is exactly that navies going for the heftiest sensor setups on frigates are not first tier navies.

 

[GK Dundas]

The Americans have acquired a case of Swiss watch syndrome .
Perfection is the goal and also utterly impossible.but it won't stop those suffering from the illness from trying no matter how long it takes or how much it costs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

The modern "ASW" threat is someone throwing 24-72x P-700 Granit/equivalents at your convoy.

Or whatever the most recent Houthi temper tantrum was, and honestly the Houthi was a more challenging mix to intercept, being a mix of TBMs, cruise missiles, and drones.

Not some joker like me sneaking in to shove a torpedo up your prop shaft...

You equated size to range which is a false equivalency. Spy arrays are also irrelevant to the discussion of range. Take the arrays off of a burke there will be no noticeable increase in range.

A 7000ton ship means it's got the fuel and food stores to travel. Depending on how your fuel economy scales up and whether you're using direct drive or IEP. IEP means your prime movers whether diesel or GTs get to spin at their best economy RPM all the time.

 

[TomS]

The only option they had to offer was their patrol frigate, so it’s not really speculation.

And considering we already essentially have the production line up and running, we would have avoided pretty much all of these issues.

Neither version of the Patrol Frigate that HII showed publicly came anywhere close to meeting the FFG(X) requirement. Only 4921 even had VLS, a whopping 12 cells. Similarly, 4921 only had CEAFAR radar, a much smaller solution than the SPY-6 EASR. Also, the USCG cutters that the PF was based on are not built to the same damage control spec required for FFG(X), so that's a bunch of redesign required. Whatever HII actually offered could not have been a simple version of the Patrol Frigate and would likely have run into the same kind of issues the FREMM has encountered.

 

[Ainen]

The modern "ASW" threat is someone throwing 24-72x P-700 Granit/equivalents at your convoy.

That's 45 years old, close to retirement.

 

[yeetmahboi]

You equated size to range which is a false equivalency. Spy arrays are also irrelevant to the discussion of range. Take the arrays off of a burke there will be no noticeable increase in range

Size *is* a factor. Given same equipment fit a larger one ship will have more space available for fuel tankage than a smaller one.

Except that the Burkes and Connies were designed from the ground up for mounting SPY-1/6. Were they only designed for a single Sea Giraffe (or NTU for that time period) and have armament corresponding to the capability said combat system offer the ship would be smaller.

But main sensor setup itself is reserved, more “economical” than Constellation.

How is it less economical? It's one less radar face but has onboard L-band and X-band arrays and an onboard director (STIR/SPG-60 equivalent).

There are way more lavish designs than either. And the point is exactly that navies going for the heftiest sensor setups on frigates are not first tier navies.

None have argued so. My point is that the two navies gearing up for HIC is building heavy, sensor laden frigates. None have argued that the F126 is representative of a first rate combatant.