FFG(X)

[Jimmo952]

Just need to get rid of SPY for a cheaper rotating radar.
Probably the same one being used to upgrade LCS radars and the price drops significantly.

I just don’t have any clue how the Connie had her keel laid like 2 years ago and they still haven’t finalized the design…like what are they still bickering over? How many urinals vs stalls to put in the heads?

Don't change a GD thing. Finish the design and build it.

The last thing that project needs is changes.

If the people in charge can't or won't do it, fire them and give the job to someone else.

If there is a need to re-scope up or down, do it in a Flight 2.

Acceptance of delays, cost overruns and failure cannot allowed to become acceptable and I fear that is the case at NAVSEA.

 

[Jimmo952]

As someone who is probably well below the median age here, I truly wonder what changed so drastically since the times of the Ticonderogas and Burkes, what led to this incredible deterioration? It's truly a topic to be studied.

The Cold War ended and shipbuilding became less of a priority.

Shipyards were consolidated or went out of business for lack of work.

The people who knew how to design and build ships retired or were laid off.

The processes used to procure, design and build ships became scelortic.

There was no real accountability for failure.

You get the idea...

 

[Jimmo952]

Perhaps they are arguing over adding potholes, anti-tank weapons, and a 120mm smoothbore.

I can only speculate, but it seems reasonable to point out that Fincantieri Marinette Marine did not pitch a clean sheet design to the Navy, and the Navy also told Congress that it would not be clean sheet.

FMM would not have stood up a design team capable of doing a clean sheet design in a short amount of time.

So when the Navy requested so many tweaks to get the ship to where they actually wanted it, that work would fall on an undersized design team in a country that barely even has naval architects anymore.

Even small and unambitious design changes would then take a very long time to complete, especially given that most of the ship has evidently had these tweaks.

We know that the bridge and the propulsion modules have not had many changes. That leaves everything else.

The project did not allow for clean sheet designs.

Only designs for ships that already had hulls in the water were allowed to be bid.

There are needs and wants. Tough choices have to be made between needs, wants and their effect on costs and timelines.

I thought they were going to run the program with a cost cap in place to constrain gold-plating the design. That didn't last long.

There is a crisis of leadership in the Navy. There is no accountability for failure.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Don't change a GD thing. Finish the design and build it.

The last thing that project needs is changes.

If the people in charge can't or won't do it, fire them and give the job to someone else.

If there is a need to re-scope up or down, do it in a Flight 2.

Acceptance of delays, cost overruns and failure cannot allowed to become acceptable and I fear that is the case at NAVSEA.

The project needs to be scrapped, because it doesn’t provide what the fleet actually needs.

Delays, cost overruns, and failure have been acceptable for about 20 years now.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The design itself seems sound, if somewhat incomplete. That should go forward. The process that created the design and delayed production by years needs to go.

Exactly.

At this point US naval procurement has become some sort of Ouroboros where the Navy, the Shipyards and the Politicians all fuck up/sabotage each other which just creates a never ending loop of issues upon issues.

As someone who is probably well below the median age here, I truly wonder what changed so drastically since the times of the Ticonderogas and Burkes, what led to this incredible deterioration? It's truly a topic to be studied.

It's not a matter of deterioration.

USN procurement has been like this since the 1970s. Some dipshit at NAVSEA gets a wild hair up his ass and makes changes to the design, which requires ripping out parts that are already completed to make the changes, then putting that all back in... Then a different dipshit at NAVSEA gets a wild hair up his ass and makes changes to the design, which requires ripping out parts that are already completed possibly including the previous changes... Repeat ad absurdum.

None of the shipyards on the Great Lakes, that built hundreds of ships in WW2, will do business with the USN anymore. And haven't since the 1970s. Because the USN keeps fiddling with the designs and forcing shipyards to cut out work already completed to make the latest design change.

Does the navy need to remove SPY-6, Aegis, Mk 41? I guess you could make that argument, but then you just have another LCS that is incapable of independent action. SPY-6, Aegis, and 32 VLS seems like the bare minimum now.

I'd argue that the Red Sea Turkey Shoot suggests that the minimum VLS load is more like 48-64. Not because someone can throw that many missiles at you at one time, but because a ship escorting through there is under attack for days at a time, maybe a full week, before you get a chance to reload.

32x VLS looks something like 12x ESSM in 3 cells, 6x VL-ASROC, and 23x Standards (assuming no Tomahawks). And in the Red Sea specifically, I'd probably swap 3x Standards for another 12x ESSMs. But is 24x ESSM and 20x Standards going to last you a week, if Houthi and the Blowfish are throwing 10 missiles at you every day? No. You need about 70 missiles onboard, and cannot just pack the VLS with ESSM quadpacks due to lack of range.

48x VLS would look something like 36x ESSM in 9 cells, 6x VL-ASROC, and 31x Standards. That's 67 missiles. Better.

64x VLS would look something like 48x ESSM in 12 cells, 6x VL-ASROC, and 46x Standards. That's 93 missiles. Now we're talking.

Yes, I am deliberately loading heavy on the ESSMs in this case, but it's specific to that mission.

So when the Navy requested so many tweaks to get the ship to where they actually wanted it, that work would fall on an undersized design team in a country that barely even has naval architects anymore.

Even small and unambitious design changes would then take a very long time to complete, especially given that most of the ship has evidently had these tweaks.

We know that the bridge and the propulsion modules have not had many changes. That leaves everything else.

As I mentioned, the Navy is terrible about constantly changing a design, forcing shipyards to rip out work already completed to make changes.

The project needs to be scrapped, because it doesn’t provide what the fleet actually needs.

What, so we can suffer another 20 years without a Frigate in the fleet?

What the fleet actually needs is a Frigate in the water. Not something where the designers keep f*ing changing things and the lead ship is 5 years late.

 

[Ainen]

if Houthi and the Blowfish are throwing 10 missiles at you every day? No. You need about 70 missiles onboard, and cannot just pack the VLS with ESSM quadpacks due to lack of range.

Do you produce 10...20 interceptors a day? With every one of them costing north of 2 million USD.

Adding boxes is absolutely pointless here. Ironically, it'll only worsen the situation. Last thing USN lacks is box count.

Existing ships can't do this mission through existing missiles anyway. And doing area defense of sea for year(s) isn't frigate job anyway. It's Burke's (or, frankly, USMCs).

Frigate is here to provide local defense to convoy behind, against leakers.

 

[joshjosh]

Do you produce 10...20 interceptors a day? With every one of them costing north of 2 million USD.

As a near-term solution for Houthi and the Blowfish, I'd love to see the USN adopt a VSTOL UAV with high endurance that can carry pods of APKWS II interceptors.

 

[Ainen]

As a near-term solution for Houthi and the Blowfish, I'd love to see the USN adopt a VSTOL UAV with high endurance that can carry pods of APKWS II interceptors.

This doesn't sound near term.

But tbf, this particular case isn't a problem solvable through maritime defense.

The question is how Yemen produces 10 OtH weapons per day (which btw it most clearly does not), and what can be done with it.

If nothing - just don't fight.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But tbf, this particular case isn't a problem solvable through maritime defense.

The question is how Yemen produces 10 OtH weapons per day (which btw it most clearly does not), and what can be done with it.

If nothing - just don't fight.

I'd argue that Iran is delivering ~10 OtH weapons per day.

 

[yeetmahboi]

I'd argue that Iran is delivering ~10 OtH weapons per day.

Defense is worthless if you allow the other guy to attack without fear of retaliation.

 

[Ainen]

I'd argue that Iran is delivering ~10 OtH weapons per day.

But that's in Iran, not in Yemen.

And for this particular threat, mk.220 with affordable guided shells is better weapon of choice.

Overall, though, Iran has long since evolved far too strong to be solved by frigates(I.e. as a tertiary threat).

 

[Josh_TN]

I think getting boats in the water is the greatest concern and arguments for more VLS or less expensive AD are pretty pointless. The various arguments for perfection over “good enough “ are exactly what delayed the program.

 

[EmoBirb]

This doesn't sound near term.

But tbf, this particular case isn't a problem solvable through maritime defense.

The question is how Yemen produces 10 OtH weapons per day (which btw it most clearly does not), and what can be done with it.

If nothing - just don't fight.

Agreed. That particular mission isn't really suited for frigates, at least not the Constellation. It's also, as a whole an issue that cannot be resolved with military means, I wonder when Americans will grasp the idea that you can't just solve every issue with missiles and bombs lol.

But coming back to the naval domain, wasn't this sort of thing what the LCS were designed for? Whereas the Constellations are more so developed with an Indo-Pacific outlook in mind?

 

[Jimmo952]

Agreed. That particular mission isn't really suited for frigates, at least not the Constellation. It's also, as a whole an issue that cannot be resolved with military means, I wonder when Americans will grasp the idea that you can't just solve every issue with missiles and bombs lol.

But coming back to the naval domain, wasn't this sort of thing what the LCS were designed for? Whereas the Constellations are more so developed with an Indo-Pacific outlook in mind?

The world has changed since the LCS was conceived.

At that time, the US Navy thought they would be fighting against boghammers in the Persian Gulf.

We are now in an era were even non-state actors like the Houthis can field anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, UAVs and USVs.

The Ukranians have demonstrated just how effective these unmanned systems can be.

These systems are only going to get smarter and more dangerous.

 

[EmoBirb]

The world has changed since the LCS was conceived.

At that time, the US Navy thought they would be fighting against boghammers in the Persian Gulf.

We are now in an era were even non-state actors like the Houthis can field anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, UAVs and USVs.

The Ukranians have demonstrated just how effective these unmanned systems can be.

These systems are only going to get smarter and more dangerous.

I understand that, however except the AShMs and AShBMs I don't really see the need for more missiles. UAVs are better and more efficiently dealt with through DEWs/Lasers and against USVs I don't see a solution aside from jamming, ship mounted guns to shred said USVs or alternative giving this role to Helicopters/the own UAV. These two threats aren't really dealt with through missiles, at least not in an economic or particularly efficient manner.

 

[Ainen]

But coming back to the naval domain, wasn't this sort of thing what the LCS were designed for? Whereas the Constellations are more so developed with an Indo-Pacific outlook in mind?

LCS were designed as "floating servers" for various off-board and modular payloads, darting around in brown waters just over the horizon, too elusive to be hit by suppressed non-peer enemy with missiles.

That's why they're so fast - both to catch to all the FACs, and to avoid fickle OtH targeting loops of blind enemies, trying to guess their shots. In a way, they were a way to contain 2000s Iran or even China to their coastlines (as DDX were a way to bombard them the hell away from shore). None of this worked, of course, and their targets evolved so fast, that idea is long dead.

As frigates they are worthless, though they were adapted to alternative use in modern circumstances.
Constellations are for the whole world, not just for IPAC. With their 2" guns they're quite relevant in the gulf area, too.

 

[Jimmo952]

I understand that, however except the AShMs and AShBMs I don't really see the need for more missiles. UAVs are better and more efficiently dealt with through DEWs/Lasers and against USVs I don't see a solution aside from jamming, ship mounted guns to shred said USVs or alternative giving this role to Helicopters/the own UAV. These two threats aren't really dealt with through missiles, at least not in an economic or particularly efficient manner.

So long as the enemy only attacks with certain weapons, all will be fine

So long as the enemy only attacks with one or two weapons at a time, all will be fine.

I'm pretty sure the world doesn't work that way.

When there is an operational laser weapon knocking down UAVs in the Red or Black Seas, let me know.

Guns are good but nobody wants to let these things get that close to them before they open fire.

 

[1635yankee]

This is what DOGE should be looking into. Hegseth probably won't have to teeth to complain.

I blame the government's outsourcing of expertise, which has badly impacted every shipbuilding project after the Burkes. If nothing else, the Navy needs good project managers with the appropriate level of authority and insulation from politics, both from civilians and the services, which the current administration is demonstrating will never happen.