FFG(X)

[sferrin]

The idea a swarm of boats could deploy from somewhere, then launch any kind of coordinated attack using shoulder or pintle mounted weapons - can only come from people who have never done it.

But that's the least of the problems. Who says they need to be manned? Who says they all need to be manned? 40 boats come out, pre-briefed, 10 of them with warheads in their hulls and a crew who's going to bail when their buddies take the boats over remotely. The possibilities are damn near limitless.

40 boats? 10 warheads?

The logistics of that require a state.

That's what we've been talking about. Last I checked Iran qualifies. Also they've been practicing this stuff for years.

 

[sferrin]

People like that don’t martyr themselves or get used in that way -

You mean like Japanese pilots in WW2?

 

[Purpletrouble]

The idea a swarm of boats could deploy from somewhere, then launch any kind of coordinated attack using shoulder or pintle mounted weapons - can only come from people who have never done it.

But that's the least of the problems. Who says they need to be manned? Who says they all need to be manned? 40 boats come out, pre-briefed, 10 of them with warheads in their hulls and a crew who's going to bail when their buddies take the boats over remotely. The possibilities are damn near limitless.

40 boats? 10 warheads?

The logistics of that require a state.

That's what we've been talking about. Last I checked Iran qualifies. Also they've been practicing this stuff for years.

And judging by their PR video its pretty much as I stated it would be. Small, hard to coordinate and dependent upon some very controlled circumstances.

We’ve been doing small boat ops for centuries, it is still difficult and as I aluded to with torpedo boats, when tested in battle they rapidly evolved.

 

[Purpletrouble]

People like that don’t martyr themselves or get used in that way -

You mean like Japanese pilots in WW2?

Fair one - but they were para-commandos, why would you waste them on a rib?

The lesson of kamikazis however is that they gave up on airpower and still didnt come close to decisive effect. Martyring people still comes at an opportunity cost.

As the video shows, the real threat is SSMs.

I’m still wondering how we actually use all this defensive weaponry, of whatever flavour, in a real world scenario. The Iranians arent going to wait for declared war before launching these things. Iirc the Cole didnt get a shot off? So 5.56/7.62/12.5/20/30/40/57-127mm doesn’t really matter so much as how we employ force?

 

[sferrin]

People like that don’t martyr themselves or get used in that way -

You mean like Japanese pilots in WW2?

Fair one - but they were para-commandos, why would you waste them on a rib?

The lesson of kamikazis however is that they gave up on airpower and still didnt come close to decisive effect. Martyring people still comes at an opportunity cost.

As the video shows, the real threat is SSMs.

I’m still wondering how we actually use all this defensive weaponry, of whatever flavour, in a real world scenario. The Iranians arent going to wait for declared war before launching these things. Iirc the Cole didnt get a shot off? So 5.56/7.62/12.5/20/30/40/57-127mm doesn’t really matter so much as how we employ force?

The Cole was tied up at the pier. They floated a bomb next to it and blew it up. Maybe you're thinking of the Stark?

USS Stark incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

USS Stark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As I recall, somebody at the time said the Phalanx was down for maintenance or something. (Even so, given the main radar didn't detect the missiles coming in, the Phalanx would have had to have been in automatic mode to be of any use at all. Where they didn't know they were under attack it seems unlikely they'd have used it that way.) If anything this supports the notion current ships are underarmed.

 

[Purpletrouble]

People like that don’t martyr themselves or get used in that way -

You mean like Japanese pilots in WW2?

Fair one - but they were para-commandos, why would you waste them on a rib?

The lesson of kamikazis however is that they gave up on airpower and still didnt come close to decisive effect. Martyring people still comes at an opportunity cost.

As the video shows, the real threat is SSMs.

I’m still wondering how we actually use all this defensive weaponry, of whatever flavour, in a real world scenario. The Iranians arent going to wait for declared war before launching these things. Iirc the Cole didnt get a shot off? So 5.56/7.62/12.5/20/30/40/57-127mm doesn’t really matter so much as how we employ force?

The Cole was tied up at the pier. They floated a bomb next to it and blew it up. Maybe you're thinking of the Stark?

USS Stark incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

USS Stark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As I recall, somebody at the time said the Phalanx was down for maintenance or something. (Even so, given the main radar didn't detect the missiles coming in, the Phalanx would have had to have been in automatic mode to be of any use at all. Where they didn't know they were under attack it seems unlikely they'd have used it that way.) If anything this supports the notion current ships are underarmed.

I did mean the Cole - a boat attack that succeeded with whatever weaponry was on board the Cole being completely irrelevant because the attack wasnt registered as one in time to decide to use it. To me that is the real threat.

The Stark illustrates the other real threat is still SSMs. Again, moving instantaneously peace to war with weapons and decoys being authorised is still a very difficult one and easy to get wrong eg Vincennes.

I guess arguing over the merits of this or that calibre and this or that guided/unguided round, to me misses the much bigger question of how we get to a weapons free point, as I don’t believe the boat swarm will be a hot war tactic where the prameters of the system will matter much less than whether you get to use it - plus I doubt these are really very feasible to pull off in reality and thus the weapon systems do not need to be so highly spec’d.

Bit like Trafalgar, nominally superior force defeated by tactics that negated the superiority and it was the human element (ie. training) that also decided it.

Anyway, hope the insights into actually operating boat attacks added value.

 

[Josh_TN]

CIWS is also typically deactivated during any helo operations. Actually in a non war setting, I don't think it would be ever active except in a time of extremely high alert.

 

[Purpletrouble]

People like that don’t martyr themselves or get used in that way -

You mean like Japanese pilots in WW2?

Fair one - but they were para-commandos, why would you waste them on a rib?

The lesson of kamikazis however is that they gave up on airpower and still didnt come close to decisive effect. Martyring people still comes at an opportunity cost.

As the video shows, the real threat is SSMs.

I’m still wondering how we actually use all this defensive weaponry, of whatever flavour, in a real world scenario. The Iranians arent going to wait for declared war before launching these things. Iirc the Cole didnt get a shot off? So 5.56/7.62/12.5/20/30/40/57-127mm doesn’t really matter so much as how we employ force?

The Cole was tied up at the pier. They floated a bomb next to it and blew it up. Maybe you're thinking of the Stark?

USS Stark incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

USS Stark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As I recall, somebody at the time said the Phalanx was down for maintenance or something. (Even so, given the main radar didn't detect the missiles coming in, the Phalanx would have had to have been in automatic mode to be of any use at all. Where they didn't know they were under attack it seems unlikely they'd have used it that way.) If anything this supports the notion current ships are underarmed.

Sorry misread a bit - yes completely agree that if they don’t know they are under attack until too late that is the real problem.

I disagree with the answer - more weapons would not have saved the Stark, I’m a little confused how you draw that conclusion having just stated the problem was in the sensor-decide chain?

 

[Josh_TN]

Random question, does FFG(X) not carry any Mk36 launchers? I know there are four sets of MK53s, but there don't seem to be any SRBOC dispensers and I'd think at a minimum they would want those for flares. Plus I think I would always want a chaff cloud option even with the Nulkas.

 

[sferrin]

I disagree with the answer - more weapons would not have saved the Stark, I’m a little confused how you draw that conclusion having just stated the problem was in the sensor-decide chain?

There was a spot in one of the articles about sensors/weapons being masked by the ship's structure. (Fire control for the 76mm can't see aft and the Phalanx wouldn't be able to see forward for example.) At the least they should have 360 degree coverage for CIWS IMO. Also, if you're in a warzone, and have had words with a potential enemy aircraft, it might be prudent to put CIWS in full auto. (Then again you don't necessarily want to shoot down the pair of Su-24s that decide to do a flyby, so you'd want to be smart about it.)

 

[TomS]

Random question, does FFG(X) not carry any Mk36 launchers? I know there are four sets of MK53s, but there don't seem to be any SRBOC dispensers and I'd think at a minimum they would want those for flares. Plus I think I would always want a chaff cloud option even with the Nulkas.

I'd think I'd want the option for IR decoys as well. The art we've seen does not show SRBOC but the original versions of Mk 53 DLS (Mod 4) have those tubes at the base of the Nulka launchers. Not sure about Mod 9. It would be a simple mod.

 

[jsport]

I disagree with the answer - more weapons would not have saved the Stark, I’m a little confused how you draw that conclusion having just stated the problem was in the sensor-decide chain?

There was a spot in one of the articles about sensors/weapons being masked by the ship's structure. (Fire control for the 76mm can't see aft and the Phalanx wouldn't be able to see forward for example.) At the least they should have 360 degree coverage for CIWS IMO. Also, if you're in a warzone, and have had words with a potential enemy aircraft, it might be prudent to put CIWS in full auto. (Then again you don't necessarily want to shoot down the pair of Su-24s that decide to do a flyby, so you'd want to be smart about it.)

360 degree coverage for CIWS sounds right and eventually a dual w, DEW developing up to a dual w NPB within 10yrs. Hypervelocity missles are going get smaller soo...

 

[Purpletrouble]

So essentially the same problem as Sheffield. Ships too small to effectively use what they do have. Boling on more seems likely to create yet further obstructions and interferance.

it seems unlikely anyone would put a CIWS into full auto bar being on Sheffield knowing something was inbound. The risk of fk up is just too high.

Plus are they even loaded? I recall them having to play water on the CIWS ready use lockers on Ark when in places hot and they had spaced shields on the lockers partly to prevent heat getting to the ammo. Presumably the rounds on the gun would have no such protection and cook off / distortion would be a real problem? We didn’t leave the 30mms, GPMGs or miniguns loaded for the same reason. Ditto all the decoys, only got loaded at action stations and there were strict time/temp limits they could be out.

Plus being buzzed by “hostile” aircraft is routine especially Iranian. We had a MPA go right over the bridge, was a hell of a shock when reported to ops room who had nothing on anything. I suspect they weren’t paying attention or else our radars truly sucked! Either way no one is going to shoot it down and start a war until after it has dropped anything at you.

Point is the human side of it - see/hear and decide (being careful to to escalate or inadvertently initiate) and again how the environment dictates more than nominal calibres, barrels and ranges.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I know there have been studies for directed sonic energy weapons in riot situations, would they possibly be effective against a swarm attack on a ship?

 

[apparition13]

Hilarious how the I's want to board a ship they have destroyed. What to capture the survivors before they all sink, including the boarding party. .

What was also hilarious was fast roping from rhe helos onto something comfortably big enough to land on and disembark everyone near instantly. The point of fastroping is where you cant land (having done it!).

Plus they board the CVN, which has been hit and disabled so has presumably everything from ammo to leaking reactors, and at least several thousand people still alive - with light infantry carrying what, half a dozen mags each - where are the breeching charges for doors? respirators for a smoke filled environment? more ammo, much more ammo.

Plus yes, aside from killing even more, which is completely pointless when you’ve already acheived the biggest coup since 7/12/41, but putting precious and expensive helos and people at risk, why?

Like you said, it's a PR video. It's not footage from a training exercise. It was probably edited together with footage from different times anyway; the missile footage looked different. It doesn't have to make military sense, it just has to look good. Fast-roping looks more dramatic than landing. Circular wakes around a target is visually dynamic. Black uniforms look more threatening, although I think the khaki boots ruined the effect. It's likely for internal consumption; the English is just to get youtube views. The only thing that impressed me was that they have a carrier-like object to play with. Not the Michael Bay wannabe footage.

 

[Josh_TN]

The Iranians have had their fake CV for some years now. I think they have actually shot at it and rebuilt it since it was first made. Not sure how old this google map is, but it normally hangs out at Bandar Abbas. Presumably it would take tugs to move it anywhere; I think it is effectively a huge barge with no moving parts with the sole function of being a target in propaganda films.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[sferrin]

I know there have been studies for directed sonic energy weapons in riot situations, would they possibly be effective against a swarm attack on a ship?

Almost certainly not. Distances are quite different and the boats might not even have people on them.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Thank you, I had heard that sonic weapons may be effective on certain remote controlled vehicles but no way of knowing if this is correct or not. I would think not. Jammers like cell phone jammers might be a better bet as the use of mobile phone type management would be a cheaper option for those in the 'trade'.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Hilarious how the I's want to board a ship they have destroyed. What to capture the survivors before they all sink, including the boarding party. .

What was also hilarious was fast roping from rhe helos onto something comfortably big enough to land on and disembark everyone near instantly. The point of fastroping is where you cant land (having done it!).

Plus they board the CVN, which has been hit and disabled so has presumably everything from ammo to leaking reactors, and at least several thousand people still alive - with light infantry carrying what, half a dozen mags each - where are the breeching charges for doors? respirators for a smoke filled environment? more ammo, much more ammo.

Plus yes, aside from killing even more, which is completely pointless when you’ve already acheived the biggest coup since 7/12/41, but putting precious and expensive helos and people at risk, why?

Like you said, it's a PR video. It's not footage from a training exercise. It was probably edited together with footage from different times anyway; the missile footage looked different. It doesn't have to make military sense, it just has to look good. Fast-roping looks more dramatic than landing. Circular wakes around a target is visually dynamic. Black uniforms look more threatening, although I think the khaki boots ruined the effect. It's likely for internal consumption; the English is just to get youtube views. The only thing that impressed me was that they have a carrier-like object to play with. Not the Michael Bay wannabe footage.

Yes, I was impressed by the target ship size!

My point was even when they are doing it for PR, it still didn’t look very good. That isn’t usually how PR works...

Although... Im sure this has been posted and seen, but it is hilarious...
Beach Assault, or not...

 

[Purpletrouble]

Thank you, I had heard that sonic weapons may be effective on certain remote controlled vehicles but no way of knowing if this is correct or not. I would think not. Jammers like cell phone jammers might be a better bet as the use of mobile phone type management would be a cheaper option for those in the 'trade'.

Wiki lists LRAD with MoD being a user amongst other militaries and rhe article refers directly to anti piracy tasks. Which would involve it being fitted to ships in the area in question.

Long Range Acoustic Device

I can’t say what they are like on the receiving end of however.

 

[Trident]

This is how you do a frigate:

It's a good design that packs a formidable punch for its size, but as others have explained is rather optimized to very specific Russian requirements which make it a poor fit for US-style operations. Russia needs to rapidly build up hull numbers (having a pent-up demand for replacements), and particularly the number of land attack capable ships, but has nowhere near the same global projection ambitions. The delays with its AAW system held it back badly, but that doesn't mean the intention wasn't as stated.

I think it might be a bit of a stretch to call that ship a frigate in the USN sense of the word. It is heavily armed, but I suspect it would have problems in high sea states with that top heavy arrangement. For Russian purposes in the Black Sea and Baltic, that isn't a concern...the vessel fits their requirements perfectly.

Not sure where you're seeing a particularly top heavy arrangement. True, the Gorshkov hull has a relatively high length/beam ratio by modern standards, but the superstructure is correspondingly low, without an excessively tall mast - this is one of the chief reasons why it looks so sleek and aesthetically appealing. For the Burke (more so even its Japanese brethren) with its tall superstructure with large integrated radar arrays and the Type 45 with its immense main mast, wider hull forms are *essential*! It's not about better sea keeping, so much as retaining acceptable stability in spite of their radar configuration.

The Gorshkovs are definitely NOT intended for the Black & Baltic Sea, rather the Northern & Pacific fleets - and given the waters this means they are supposed to routinely operate in, poor sea keeping would be rather a show stopper! The real compromise is far more trivial: they are conspicuously short-legged compared to their Western counterparts. As pointed out above, that's fine for Russian purposes but rather a non-starter for a USN surface combatant.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Pentagon Notice Says The First Of The Navy's New Frigates Will Be Named USS Brooke (Updated)

The last USS Brooke was the lead ship of the Navy's first class of guided-missile frigates, which entered service in the 1960s.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Cordy]

The naming of the first new USN frigate USS Brooke was a mistake, still to be decided, Pentagon now backtracking.

The Warzone
"UPDATE: The Navy got back to us and they say this was a mistake—at least that is their official position at this time. An email sent to The War Zone regarding our query reads in part:
...We are working to correct the contract announcement that went out. The Secretary of the Navy has not named the FFGX yet. We are working to understand how this happened."

 

[TomS]

I'm sure Brooke was a mistake based on some document mistakenly using FFG-1 as the hull number for the lead FFG(X) and someone googling that and seeing the old FFG-1 name. There's no way a new US Navy warship is getting named after a man who served in the Confederate Navy. Not now.

OTOH, I'm sure the Navy was more than happy to drive another stake through Agility as the class name.

 

[SSgtC]

I'm thinking they should name her USS Fletcher. There hasn't been in awhile

 

[TomS]

I'm thinking they should name her USS Fletcher. There hasn't been in awhile

Well, there was a Sprucan (DD-992), but she decommissioned more than 15 years ago. (How has it been 15 years? Time flies) I'm shocked they haven't named a DDG after Fletcher.

But I think they would resist having two classes with the same class name, so Fletcher might have to wait. I think all the DDs and DEs from Taffy 3 off Samar would be a good place to start (Heerman, Hoel, Johnston, Dennis, Raymond, Samuel B. Roberts, and John C Butler). Not sure if any of them or their COs are recognized in the current DDGs.

 

[Moose]

Fletcher is a tin can name, you'd needlessly antagonize a lot of skimmers putting it on a Frigate. I'd suggest USS Robert Smalls.

 

[SSgtC]

Fletcher is a tin can name, you'd needlessly antagonize a lot of skimmers putting it on a Frigate. I'd suggest USS Robert Smalls.

Isn't that the best thing you can do to a skimmer though?

 

[TomS]

Fletcher is a tin can name, you'd needlessly antagonize a lot of skimmers putting it on a Frigate. I'd suggest USS Robert Smalls.

I think we've reached the point where they're all "tin cans" honestly.

 

[jsport]

Navy Readies To Buy New Frigates As Industrial Base Wobbles - Breaking Defense

The Navy will recompete the program after the first 10 ships are under contract, leading to a new award and another bite at the apple for the bidders who lost out the first time around.

breakingdefense.com

 

[starviking]

Navy Readies To Buy New Frigates As Industrial Base Wobbles - Breaking Defense

The Navy will recompete the program after the first 10 ships are under contract, leading to a new award and another bite at the apple for the bidders who lost out the first time around.

breakingdefense.com

Article is over 3 months old.

 

[jsport]

Navy Readies To Buy New Frigates As Industrial Base Wobbles - Breaking Defense

The Navy will recompete the program after the first 10 ships are under contract, leading to a new award and another bite at the apple for the bidders who lost out the first time around.

breakingdefense.com

Article is over 3 months old.

Was it made clear only 10 will be purchased? An important point that a recompete will be a chance to buy something beyond a jobs program.

 

[SSgtC]

I don't think it's a new design after 10 ships. I think they're just going to recompete who gets to build the next batch instead of giving one builder a monopoly on the class

 

[TomS]

I don't think it's a new design after 10 ships. I think they're just going to recompete who gets to build the next batch instead of giving one builder a monopoly on the class

The way this was done, I don't think the Navy owns the design, so they can't just give it to another company to build.

I suspect that they want to have another look in a few years to have a chance to buy the Type 26. That mission bay arrangement is very appealing but the design wasn't quite advanced enough to meet the requirement for a proven propulsion plant.

 

[SSgtC]

I don't think it's a new design after 10 ships. I think they're just going to recompete who gets to build the next batch instead of giving one builder a monopoly on the class

The way this was done, I don't think the Navy owns the design, so they can't just give it to another company to build.

I suspect that they want to have another look in a few years to have a chance to buy the Type 26. That mission bay arrangement is very appealing but the design wasn't quite advanced enough to meet the requirement for a proven propulsion plant.

I'm not sure about that. The Navy tried the whole, "reconfigurable mission" thing on the LCS and it failed so hard that the Navy is just giving the ships a permanent weapons fit depending on what they're assigned to (or at least that was the last thing I had read on it). As for the design, I really don't know. But the way the article reads, it's not a request for a new design. But simply for the change to build the existing design. At least, that was the way it came across to me

 

[Trident]

TI suspect that they want to have another look in a few years to have a chance to buy the Type 26. That mission bay arrangement is very appealing but the design wasn't quite advanced enough to meet the requirement for a proven propulsion plant.

Agree on the T26 mission bay - it's the first such design that really makes sense to me. Arrangements on other classes always seemed to be contrived solutions looking for a problem.

I.e. reconfigurability is not a bad idea per se, but it needs to be implemented right in order to work in practice. Price considerations will be interesting though, the T26 is many things, but certainly not cheap!

 

[TomS]

I don't think it's a new design after 10 ships. I think they're just going to recompete who gets to build the next batch instead of giving one builder a monopoly on the class

The way this was done, I don't think the Navy owns the design, so they can't just give it to another company to build.

I suspect that they want to have another look in a few years to have a chance to buy the Type 26. That mission bay arrangement is very appealing but the design wasn't quite advanced enough to meet the requirement for a proven propulsion plant.

I'm not sure about that. The Navy tried the whole, "reconfigurable mission" thing on the LCS and it failed so hard that the Navy is just giving the ships a permanent weapons fit depending on what they're assigned to (or at least that was the last thing I had read on it). As for the design, I really don't know. But the way the article reads, it's not a request for a new design. But simply for the change to build the existing design. At least, that was the way it came across to me

Turns out you are correct. The FY 19 Defense Authorization Bill includes a requirement that the Navy acquire the technical design package as part of the FFG(X) competition for the purpose of allowing an open competition for later manufacturing competitions. That is surprising to me, but that's what it says.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20180509/108275/BILLS-115HR5515ih-SPF.pdf

 

[SSgtC]

I don't think it's a new design after 10 ships. I think they're just going to recompete who gets to build the next batch instead of giving one builder a monopoly on the class

The way this was done, I don't think the Navy owns the design, so they can't just give it to another company to build.

I suspect that they want to have another look in a few years to have a chance to buy the Type 26. That mission bay arrangement is very appealing but the design wasn't quite advanced enough to meet the requirement for a proven propulsion plant.

I'm not sure about that. The Navy tried the whole, "reconfigurable mission" thing on the LCS and it failed so hard that the Navy is just giving the ships a permanent weapons fit depending on what they're assigned to (or at least that was the last thing I had read on it). As for the design, I really don't know. But the way the article reads, it's not a request for a new design. But simply for the change to build the existing design. At least, that was the way it came across to me

Turns out you are correct. The FY 19 Defense Authorization Bill includes a requirement that the Navy acquire the technical design package as part of the FFG(X) competition for the purpose of allowing an open competition for later manufacturing competitions. That is surprising to me, but that's what it says.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20180509/108275/BILLS-115HR5515ih-SPF.pdf

The US has done things like this before. Most notably in WWII where, for example the B-17, despite being a Boeing design, was built by literally everyone. Even closer to today, the Navy does this. The Arleigh Burke class are built by both Ingalls and Bath Iron Works.

 

[trose213]

I don't think it's a new design after 10 ships. I think they're just going to recompete who gets to build the next batch instead of giving one builder a monopoly on the class

The way this was done, I don't think the Navy owns the design, so they can't just give it to another company to build.

I suspect that they want to have another look in a few years to have a chance to buy the Type 26. That mission bay arrangement is very appealing but the design wasn't quite advanced enough to meet the requirement for a proven propulsion plant.

Or a Japanese or Korean design if they finally figure out how to compete.

 

[marauder2048]

the Secretary of the Navy shall require that an offeror submit a proposal that provides for
conveying technical data as part of the proposal for the frigate.

That's nice and vague: I read that as there's an option for the USG to buy the data rights.