FFG(X)

[Cjc]

32 cells is more than enough for a frigate if the cost can be kept under control. There is value in having more ships, even if you have fewer VLS cells. A Burke with 96 cells can still only be in one place at a time.

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.

 

[Ozair]

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.

By the time FFG(X) hits the fleet there will likely be a reasonable unmanned companion vessel available or in test. Why increase the size of the FFG(X) if you can provide the flexibility of a companion unmanned asset?

 

[apparition13]

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.

 

[Cjc]

By the time FFG(X) hits the fleet there will likely be a reasonable unmanned companion vessel available or in test. Why increase the size of the FFG(X) if you can provide the flexibility of a companion unmanned asset?

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.

 

[Ozair]

Well a) a usv devifnatly would not have been available if the ship hadn't had a 3+ year delay and

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.

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.

Plan is for build to start in FY2027.

LUSV. The Navy envisions LUSVs as being 200 feet to 300 feet in length and having full load displacements of 1,000 tons to 2,000 tons, which would make them the size of a corvette (i.e., a ship larger than a patrol craft and smaller than a frigate).The Navy wants LUSVs to be low-cost, high-endurance, reconfigurable ships with ample capacity for carrying various modular payloads—particularly anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and strike payloads, meaning principally anti-ship and land attack missiles. Each LUSV could be equipped with a vertical launch system (VLS) with 16 to 32 missile-launching tubes. Although referred to as unmanned vehicles, LUSVs might be more accurately described as optionally or lightly manned ships, because they might sometimes have a few onboard crew members, particularly in the nearer term as the Navy works out LUSV enabling technologies and operational concepts. The Navy has been using LUSV prototypes to develop LUSV operational concepts. The Navy’s FY2025 budget submission programs the procurement of production LUSVs through the Navy’s shipbuilding account, with the first LUSV to be procured in FY2027 at an estimated cost of $497.6 million, the next two in FY2028 at a combined estimated cost of $652.8 million (i.e., an average of about $326.4 million each), and the next three in FY2029 at a combined estimated cost of $994.3 million (i.e., an average of $331.4 million each). Under the Navy’sFY2024 budget submission, procurement of LUSVs was to begin two years earlier, in FY2025. The Navy states: “This necessary [two-year] delay reduces risk associated with concurrency in requirements development, design specifications and machinery reliability testing.”

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45757/75

which probably lines up reasonably well with the FFG(X) build.

 

[Cjc]

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)

 

[TomS]

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.

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.

 

[Josh_TN]

Were there any changes to propulsion from FREMM to Connie? I’m struggling to find anything the two have in common.

 

[TomS]

Were there any changes to propulsion from FREMM to Connie? I’m struggling to find anything the two have in common.

Not that we've heard about, except upsizing the diesel generators.

 

[Moose]

Connie will have a retractable azimuth thruster, which previous FREMMs do not. Other than that, as TomS said.

 

[TomS]

Connie will have a retractable azimuth thruster, which previous FREMMs do not. Other than that, as TomS said.

Does that double as a get-me-home propulsor as in the old FFGs, or is it just for docking?

 

[H_K]

Connie will have a retractable azimuth thruster, which previous FREMMs do not.

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:

Table 4: Comparison of Propulsion System Components Planned for Navy Frigate and Used on the Italian Frigate https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106546.pdf

• Gas turbine | Same—No change
• Electric propulsion motor | Different—More powerful propulsion motors to increase speed and electric power
• Ship service diesel generator | Different—More powerful diesel generators that have higher voltage to increase speed and electric power
• Main reduction gear | Different—Newly designed main reduction gear to meet Navy requirements
• Propellor | Different—Newly designed fixed pitch propellors designed to increase ruggedness and reliability
• Machinery Centralized Control System | Different — 95% new software code

(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)

 

[Moose]

Does that double as a get-me-home propulsor as in the old FFGs, or is it just for docking?

Yes it's a 1MW Thrustmaster intended for more general low-speed maneuvering rather than just docking.

 

[Yellow Palace]

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.

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]

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.

 

[joshjosh]

Was this Freedom LCS variant with 32 VLS cells ever considered for FFG(X)?

View: https://youtu.be/jcYPEd0vH30?si=mN2TzWgteK4vEEBE

 

[Ozair]

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)

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.

Was this Freedom LCS variant with 32 VLS cells ever considered for FFG(X)?

View: https://youtu.be/jcYPEd0vH30?si=mN2TzWgteK4vEEBE

Yes but was not selected, LM withdrew before final selection.

Constellation-class frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cjc]

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.

 

[Arjen]

macheraty

?

 

[TomS]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Jimmo952]

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.

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.

 

[H_K]

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.

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).

 

[Jimmo952]

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]

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]

The USN just can't help itself. They are going to end up with a baby Burke.

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.