We have had this argument many times on this forum, not that I want to get into it. But cost have not been kept under control on this frigate wich makes the 32 cell desition seem so bad, especially sense adding more cells would have been a hell of a lot easier then most of the other shit the navy added to this design.
FFG(X)
- Thread starter Cordy
- Start date
apparition13
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 27 January 2017
- Messages
- 559
- Reaction score
- 991
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.
Well a) a usv devifnatly would not have been available if the ship hadn't had a 3+ year delay and b) is there even a program for a ship like that for the usn, the only navy I know of that has a program like that is the Dutch right now, everything else is pretty renders by vendors.
Sure but the FFG(X) will be in service for 30 plus years so a few years late on LUSV doesn't really impact right now.
Plan is for build to start in FY2027.
which probably lines up reasonably well with the FFG(X) build.
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)
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,188
- Reaction score
- 13,159
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.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,188
- Reaction score
- 13,159
Not that we've heard about, except upsizing the diesel generators.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,188
- Reaction score
- 13,159
Does that double as a get-me-home propulsor as in the old FFGs, or is it just for docking?
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:
(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)
- Joined
- 4 July 2010
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 2,792
Yes it's a 1MW Thrustmaster intended for more general low-speed maneuvering rather than just docking.
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,300
- Reaction score
- 2,441
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.
Firefinder
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 October 2019
- Messages
- 955
- Reaction score
- 1,729
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.
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.
Was this Freedom LCS variant with 32 VLS cells ever considered for FFG(X)?
View: https://youtu.be/jcYPEd0vH30?si=mN2TzWgteK4vEEBE
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.
Yes but was not selected, LM withdrew before final selection.
Constellation-class frigate - Wikipedia
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.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,188
- Reaction score
- 13,159
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
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 October 2019
- Messages
- 955
- Reaction score
- 1,729
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.
Cause that can and will explain a whole lot bout the redesigning.
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.
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).
Last edited:
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).
The USN just can't help itself. They are going to end up with a baby Burke.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 8,209
- Reaction score
- 13,881
US Navy exercises AN/SPQ-9B option with Leonardo DRS - Naval News
Leonardo DRS has been awarded a $30.45 million firm-fixed-price modification to a previously awarded contract for the production, fabrication, inspection, testing, and delivery of AN/SPQ-9B shipborne radar systems for the US Navy.
www.navalnews.com
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,155
- Reaction score
- 10,187
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
PS Constellation fitted with 16 deck launchers for NSMs
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.
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 1,109
- Reaction score
- 1,400
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.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,188
- Reaction score
- 13,159
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.
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.
Firefinder
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 October 2019
- Messages
- 955
- Reaction score
- 1,729
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.
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?
Agree.
Interesting.
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
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,188
- Reaction score
- 13,159
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.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,155
- Reaction score
- 10,187
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.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,188
- Reaction score
- 13,159
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.
Firefinder
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 October 2019
- Messages
- 955
- Reaction score
- 1,729
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.
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.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
Sea-based Anti-Ballastic Missile Intercept System (SABMIS)
- Started by Triton
- Replies: 69
-
Zumwalt "borrows" (and adapts) European carrier designs...
- Started by Archibald
- Replies: 131