FFG(X)

[Jimmo952]

Thanks for that…I never appreciated how much the mast arrangement changed. It’s a much sleeker profile.

The US Navy wanted to leverage work they did on the masts of the Burke class.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[TomS]

...

That second file (1030-21030 etc) won't open for me.

Works now, on my desktop. Might be a problem on phones and tablets for some reason.

 

[Josh_TN]

Does anyone know if the FFGX will be equipped with PRARIE/MASKER? I've seen no mention of it, despite the fact it has been installed on several generations of USN escort. Perhaps the hybrid electric drive is thought to be quiet enough?

 

[Cordy]

Does anyone know if the FFGX will be equipped with PRARIE/MASKER? I've seen no mention of it, despite the fact it has been installed on several generations of USN escort. Perhaps the hybrid electric drive is thought to be quiet enough?

No mention of PRARIE/MASKER in spec, calls for AN/SLQ-61 Lightweight Tow (LWT) Torpedo Defense Mission Module (TDMM) or the SLQ-25 NIXIE and the propellers are fixed-pitch supplied by the RR Pascagoula upgraded foundry.

Propellers can be the main source of noise, fixed-pitch propellers can be designed to be very quiet over limited speed range but lose the the flexibility to be efficient over wide speed range to max out speed as the controllable-pitch propellers used with Burke and are much more expensive than FFP, some FPP machine a channel into the leading edge of the propeller blades to significantly reduce cavitation induced noise and erosion risk.

 

[skyblue]

Thanks for that…I never appreciated how much the mast arrangement changed. It’s a much sleeker profile.

The US Navy wanted to leverage work they did on the masts of the Burke class.

So does this mean that integrated masts are not necessarily superior? In what ways are Burke derived masts more advanced/advantageous?

 

[SSgtC]

Thanks for that…I never appreciated how much the mast arrangement changed. It’s a much sleeker profile.

The US Navy wanted to leverage work they did on the masts of the Burke class.

So does this mean that integrated masts are not necessarily superior? In what ways are Burke derived masts more advanced/advantageous?

This is strictly my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, it could be as simple as the US wanting to have a common design to make maintenance and training easier across classes, regardless of which one is "better"

 

[Josh_TN]

I suspect it’s a combination of commonality of parts and CoG reduction, at the expense of RCS.

 

[TomS]

I suspect it’s a combination of commonality of parts a CoG reduction, at the expense of RCS.

Also simplicity of engineering. Integrated masts are hard to get right, especially if you're trying for integrated apertures (like Topside). Given the desire to de-risk FFG-62 as much as possible, a known and proven mast design is highly preferred to one that requires development effort.

 

[skyblue]

However, the integrated mast on the FREMM already is engineered and exists, right? Any kind of departure away from it is what will take development effort.

 

[TomS]

However, the integrated mast on the FREMM already is engineered and exists, right? Any kind of departure away from it is what will take development effort.

Sure, but it isn't designed around US emitters. The USN puts a ton of electronic stuff on its ships (and masts) that are totally unrelated to the FREMM systems. But aside from EASR, the systems planned for FFG-62 are pretty similar to what is already on the DDG-51.

And EASR itself is a pretty big change. FREMM has a rotating antenna at the masthead, FFG-62 has 3 fixed antennas in the superstructure, not on the mast at all. So why use the FREMM mast, when there's no masthead radar for it to support?

Basically, looking at comparative drawings and concept art, the FFG-62 superstructure from about the 02 deck up seems to be entirely unique to the USN (maybe even from the weather deck). Grafting on a FREMM mast and trying to shoehorn USN systems into it seems like a bigger task than just adapting the DDG-51 design.

Relatedly, note that the USN moved away from the enclosed mast structure on the LPD-17s to something very like a DDG-51 mast for the last few LPDs (from 28 onward, I think). Presumably a trade between cost and signature.

 

[Moose]

However, the integrated mast on the FREMM already is engineered and exists, right? Any kind of departure away from it is what will take development effort.

The FREMM mast wasn't designed for USN systems, in particular something on the scale of SPY-6.

 

[Firefinder]

Relatedly, note that the USN moved away from the enclosed mast structure on the LPD-17s to something very like a DDG-51 mast for the last few LPDs (from 28 onward, I think). Presumably a trade between cost and signature.

Last Ive heard that the company that made the materials for the LPD enclosed masks was not doing so well before the change.

To the point they had to charge triple to the USN just to deliver the LPD orders.

And when the Navy was looking at the San Ans 2s the company basically admitted that they had to either close to charge triple that.

Throw in any other trades in for the integrated masts?

Cost was likely the final straw.

Shame that the Zumwalt tech went so wrong. Imagine that that class integrated antennas and the like would have been the new Standards for the FFG.

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1656660460320743425

View: https://twitter.com/FincantieriUS/status/1656660460320743425

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Future AUKUS frigate perhaps? I wasn't aware that the UK had a 3rd frigate program in the works (Type 32) so maybe it would have a shot for that?

I still think they missed an opportunity by not putting a 127mm gun on the bow and a 57mm above the hanger. It could have definitely been possible since the Italian FREMMs have a 76mm back there. I know naval guns are usually said to be "obsolete" but I'm not entirely convinced especially if these sometimes end up operating in littoral waters.

 

[Josh_TN]

What would be the point? Guns are a tertiary weapon.

 

[TomS]

Future AUKUS frigate perhaps? I wasn't aware that the UK had a 3rd frigate program in the works (Type 32) so maybe it would have a shot for that?

Nah, Type 32 is still meant as a low-cost ships like the Type 31. And indeed, it's hard to imagine it not be effectively a Type 31 Batch II, maybe with more unmanned systems capacity but definitely not in the class of the FFG-62/FREMM.

I still think they missed an opportunity by not putting a 127mm gun on the bow and a 57mm above the hanger. It could have definitely been possible since the Italian FREMMs have a 76mm back there. I know naval guns are usually said to be "obsolete" but I'm not entirely convinced especially if these sometimes end up operating in littoral waters.

Guns are no panacea in the littoral (again, ask Vincennes about how useful their gun was for boat-bashing). But if you do want a gun, you really want a rapid-firing medium-caliber one like a 57mm for bashing small swarming boats and the like. It's not at all obvious what 127mm brings to the fight there. Especially the USN's Mk 45, which is slow-firing and mostly kinda pointless. (There's a remote chance that the USN will get a useful guided round for it someday, but I'm not holding my breath.)

But it is really clear what the 127mm would cost on an FFG -- 16 VLS cells. The Italian FREMM GP ships, which have the 127mm gun, also have only 16 VLS cells. The FFGs have a 57mm gun and 32 VLS cells. And with a mix of SM2 Block IIIC and ESSM Block 2 active radar missiles for air defense, and the potential for VL ASROC and all sorts of potential future strike weapons, the VLS is way more important than a bigger gun.

Aft, you could probably fit a 57mm, but again at what cost? Again, it's clear -- a 57mm gun aft costs you the RAM launcher, which sits on the FFG's hangar now and has no where else to go without another hull stretch. I'll definitely take 21 RAM over a 57mm or 76mm gun for terminal antiship missile defense. It's not clear whether RAM Block 2 retains the surface mode mods from earlier versions, but I see no reason it shouldn't.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Nah, Type 32 is still meant as a low-cost ships like the Type 31. And indeed, it's hard to imagine it not be effectively a Type 31 Batch II, maybe with more unmanned systems capacity but definitely not in the class of the FFG-62/FREMM.

In case you're interested, a discussion of the Type 32 programme here:

Real hope for a bigger Royal Navy – the Type 32 frigate concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

A concept by BAE Systems - note, no formal requirement has yet been issued, it's only a concept, and the only one that's been publicly released.

In focus: BAE Systems’ adaptable strike frigate concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[aonestudio]

Navy Exercises Option for a Fourth Constellation Class Frigate

WASHINGTON — The Navy today exercised a contract option for a fourth Constellation class guided-missile Frigate. FFG 65 will be built by prime contractor Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM). The

www.navsea.navy.mil

 

[TomS]

Navy Exercises Option for a Fourth Constellation Class Frigate

WASHINGTON — The Navy today exercised a contract option for a fourth Constellation class guided-missile Frigate. FFG 65 will be built by prime contractor Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM). The

www.navsea.navy.mil

Can't wait to see what they name this one.

 

[SSgtC]

I'm gonna guess President. So far they're reusing the names of the Original Six Frigates

 

[TomS]

I'm gonna guess President. So far they're reusing the names of the Original Six Frigates

Strong contender, and hard to argue against after Congress. I suspect United States is out, though.

Would love to see them use the Continental Navy names. A lot are already taken but there are some good ones still available (or recently lost): Alliance, Bonhomme Richard, etc. Think we could get away with Serapis?

 

[Moose]

I'm gonna guess President. So far they're reusing the names of the Original Six Frigates

Strong contender, and hard to argue against after Congress. I suspect United States is out, though.

Would love to see them use the Continental Navy names. A lot are already taken but there are some good ones still available (or recently lost): Alliance, Bonhomme Richard, etc. Think we could get away with Serapis?

A new Bonhomme Richard to replace the burned LHD would be nice, even if I will miss having that name for a big ship (just like with Connie).

 

[1635yankee]

I'm gonna guess President. So far they're reusing the names of the Original Six Frigates

Strong contender, and hard to argue against after Congress. I suspect United States is out, though.

Would love to see them use the Continental Navy names. A lot are already taken but there are some good ones still available (or recently lost): Alliance, Bonhomme Richard, etc. Think we could get away with Serapis?

Why not? The RN had HMS President for many years

 

[TomS]

I'm gonna guess President. So far they're reusing the names of the Original Six Frigates

Strong contender, and hard to argue against after Congress. I suspect United States is out, though.

Would love to see them use the Continental Navy names. A lot are already taken but there are some good ones still available (or recently lost): Alliance, Bonhomme Richard, etc. Think we could get away with Serapis?

Why not? The RN had HMS President for many years

I'm in favor of USS President and I suspect it will happen because of the parallels with USS Congress. But it's a slightly trickier name here because we have an actual president as head of the government which might lead to some political objections.

I think USS United States might be a harder sell for a frigate because we have almost used the name for aircraft carriers (twice) and there's a lot of symbolism tied up in the name.

 

[1635yankee]

I'm gonna guess President. So far they're reusing the names of the Original Six Frigates

Strong contender, and hard to argue against after Congress. I suspect United States is out, though.

Would love to see them use the Continental Navy names. A lot are already taken but there are some good ones still available (or recently lost): Alliance, Bonhomme Richard, etc. Think we could get away with Serapis?

Why not? The RN had HMS President for many years

I'm in favor of USS President and I suspect it will happen because of the parallels with USS Congress. But it's a slightly trickier name here because we have an actual president as head of the government which might lead to some political objections.

I think USS United States might be a harder sell for a frigate because we have almost used the name for aircraft carriers (twice) and there's a lot of symbolism tied up in the name.

I also think that USS United States may be a very hard sell. In a couple of other cases, the USN used river names for major warships for many years, so why not a new Housatonic or Susquehenna? Or possibly even another warship's name that was never used again Monitor. Also, why not Serapis or Guerriere? I think most Americans could agree on Revolutionary War or War of 1812 naval victories.

 

[Firefinder]

But it's a slightly trickier name here because we have an actual president as head of the government which might lead to some political objections.

I dont see that as a major issue since well...

Gestures at the Carriers

Those are mostly name AFTER Presidents, several of which are still living*.

So it shouldn't cause that much of a problem outside of the usual Shitstirrers...


As for the United States? Give it a fifty fifty shot, we already have an USS America so it will not be that different...


*Historically doing that is consider Bad Luck.

 

[Cordy]

What is noticeable is the contract award of $526 million to Fincantieri shipyard for the fourth ship, the lead ship Constellation cost $795 million as it was at the top of the production learning curve and because the lead ship’s procurement cost incorporates much of the detailed design and nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the class.
CRS for fourth ship quotes total procurement cost as $1,135 million , presuming balance made up of the GFE, SPY-6(V) 3 radar etc, if balance only GFE very surprised such high a figure at $609 million.

 

[Cordy]

What is noticeable is the contract award of $526 million to Fincantieri shipyard for the fourth ship, the lead ship Constellation cost $795 million as it was at the top of the production learning curve and because the lead ship’s procurement cost incorporates much of the detailed design and nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the class.
CRS for fourth ship quotes total procurement cost as $1,135 million , presuming balance made up of the GFE, SPY-6(V) 3 radar etc, if balance only GFE very surprised such high a figure at $609 million.

The original frigate 'objective' cost was reported as $800 million Jan 2018 at the SNA Symposium by the then frigate program manager with Program Executive Office Unmanned and Small Combatants, Dr Regan Campbell.

Understood the breakdown was to be $495 million for shipyard and $305 million GFE. The $526 million contract for Fincantieri for the fourth frigate looks on target but the GFE looks to bust its budget big time, if above post correct with a figure of $609 million GFE, anyone have any insight as to why such a massive increase in the GFE?

Proposed Government Furnished Equipment for FFG(X) for Constellation

 

[H_K]

anyone have any insight as to why such a massive increase in the GFE?

The difference between the $526M Fincantieri contract and $1,135M total procurement cost isn’t just GFE. This also includes fixed costs (design costs, program costs), change orders etc.

Here’s the full breakdown:

$526M Fincantieri construction contract
+ $53M other basic construction costs
+ $21M change orders
= $600M total bare hull, unequipped

+ $219M electronics
+ $54M weapons
+ $19M Hull, Mechanical & Electrical
= $292M GFE

= $892M “sail away” unit cost

+ $145M design & plans
+ $50M industrial base & workforce development
+ $48M other program costs
= $243M fixed program costs

= $1,135M total unit procurement cost

The fixed costs are high early on in the program but should reduce as the design matures and the build rate increases (which helps to amortize across more hulls). It should also be possible to trim another 10-15% off the basic construction cost from productivity improvements as Fincantieri gets up the learning curve and (ideally) if the build rate can be increased to 3+ hulls/year. On the flipside inflation will make the FY24+ hulls more expensive in nominal dollars.

All in all, building that 3rd FFG each year should only cost ~$800M, which would be quite a good deal.

(From page 271) https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/24pres/SCN_Book.pdf

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Guns are no panacea in the littoral (again, ask Vincennes about how useful their gun was for boat-bashing). But if you do want a gun, you really want a rapid-firing medium-caliber one like a 57mm for bashing small swarming boats and the like. It's not at all obvious what 127mm brings to the fight there. Especially the USN's Mk 45, which is slow-firing and mostly kinda pointless. (There's a remote chance that the USN will get a useful guided round for it someday, but I'm not holding my breath.)

But it is really clear what the 127mm would cost on an FFG -- 16 VLS cells. The Italian FREMM GP ships, which have the 127mm gun, also have only 16 VLS cells. The FFGs have a 57mm gun and 32 VLS cells. And with a mix of SM2 Block IIIC and ESSM Block 2 active radar missiles for air defense, and the potential for VL ASROC and all sorts of potential future strike weapons, the VLS is way more important than a bigger gun.

Aft, you could probably fit a 57mm, but again at what cost? Again, it's clear -- a 57mm gun aft costs you the RAM launcher, which sits on the FFG's hangar now and has no where else to go without another hull stretch. I'll definitely take 21 RAM over a 57mm or 76mm gun for terminal antiship missile defense. It's not clear whether RAM Block 2 retains the surface mode mods from earlier versions, but I see no reason it shouldn't.

I'm not really familiar with how well the Vincennes performed shooting at small boats or the ranges involved but I would hope that we could do a bit better with the technological aspect these days. I've read that the Italians plan a guided version of their Vulcano 127mm projectile with an IIR seeker which would presumably be very useful in that role. You're right that the Mark 45 has a relatively slow rate of fire compared to its biggest competitor, the 127mm Oto-Melara, but this was a purposeful decision in order to make the gun as light as possible. Yet the USN never seemed to take advantage of just how light the system is by fitting it to more ships.

I didn't know it would cost 16 VLS cells. However isn't the Constellation class stretched a few meters compared to the original FREMM design? Maybe I'm guilty of judging the ship's weaponry by the amount of free deck space but it looks like there should be enough room for both a 127mm and 32 VLS cells, but naturally I don't have the deck plans so I'm probably entirely wrong. I just rather doubt a 127mm gun was really considered for that spot

As for a 57mm over the hanger would a combined mounting be possible? I know a few concepts were studied pairing RAM with different gun systems although realistically I know the Navy will never spend the money to do that. How much below-deck space does a standalone RAM launcher require? Is it like Phalanx where you could theoretically just bolt it down anywhere?

 

[Josh_TN]

The 5" really doesn't have a mission anymore, IMO. AFAIK in practice it has been used for shooting at small boats (something the 57mm is better at) or shelling shore and oil platform targets. It seems unlikely shore bombardment is going to be a thing a billion dollar surface combatant will be doing except in the most benign of environments. It is sub optimal against fast moving small boats or aircraft or missiles, where as the 57mm is a good boat sweeper and much better point defense gun (though gun based point defense seems kinda marginal to me except for slower UAVs). Against anything remotely large, literally every missile on the ship will have a surface to surface mode, so I don't see any purpose for 5".

In any case, the gun is at best a tertiary weapon system on a ship of this class, regardless of what caliber is chosen.

 

[zevets]

The 5" really doesn't have a mission anymore, IMO. AFAIK in practice it has been used for shooting at small boats (something the 57mm is better at) or shelling shore and oil platform targets. It seems unlikely shore bombardment is going to be a thing a billion dollar surface combatant will be doing except in the most benign of environments. It is sub optimal against fast moving small boats or aircraft or missiles, where as the 57mm is a good boat sweeper and much better point defense gun (though gun based point defense seems kinda marginal to me except for slower UAVs). Against anything remotely large, literally every missile on the ship will have a surface to surface mode, so I don't see any purpose for 5".

In any case, the gun is at best a tertiary weapon system on a ship of this class, regardless of what caliber is chosen.

The only mission where I can see the 5in being relevant is staring down a chinese 'coast guard' ship at 200 yards (i.e. inside of missile range) and then seeing who can sink who first. Probably not worth it.

 

[TomS]

The only mission where I can see the 5in being relevant is staring down a chinese 'coast guard' ship at 200 yards (i.e. inside of missile range) and then seeing who can sink who first. Probably not worth it.

I'll take the 57mm for that mission any day, just based on sheer ROF. If not Phalanx in surface mode, just for sheer swiss cheese factor.

 

[Cordy]

anyone have any insight as to why such a massive increase in the GFE?

The difference between the $526M Fincantieri contract and $1,135M total procurement cost isn’t just GFE. This also includes fixed costs (design costs, program costs), change orders etc.

Here’s the full breakdown:

$526M Fincantieri construction contract
+ $53M other basic construction costs
+ $21M change orders
= $600M total bare hull, unequipped

+ $219M electronics
+ $54M weapons
+ $19M Hull, Mechanical & Electrical
= $292M GFE

= $892M “sail away” unit cost

+ $145M design & plans
+ $50M industrial base & workforce development
+ $48M other program costs
= $243M fixed program costs

= $1,135M total unit procurement cost

The fixed costs are high early on in the program but should reduce as the design matures and the build rate increases (which helps to amortize across more hulls). It should also be possible to trim another 10-15% off the basic construction cost from productivity improvements as Fincantieri gets up the learning curve and (ideally) if the build rate can be increased to 3+ hulls/year. On the flipside inflation will make the FY24+ hulls more expensive in nominal dollars.

All in all, building that 3rd FFG each year should only cost ~$800M, which would be quite a good deal.

(From page 271) https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/24pres/SCN_Book.pdf

Thanks for your pointer to SCN, though confused as the Navy figures different to the figures you quote eg Basic construction costs quoted as $629M and not the Fincantieri contract value $526M

One further point to come out is the cost of LBES
A Land-Based Engineering Site (LBES) was mandated by Congress in the FY21 NDAA for testing and verifying the Constellation's new hybrid propulsion plant at NSWC Philadelphia, after the major and expensive problems incurred on the LCS propulsion systems. The Navy Dec 2021 SAR reported the Program Office estimated an additional $322.1M for the LBES which had not been included in the original FFG APB.
CRS reports the that an additional $85M was included in the FY22 SCN budget for preparation of LBES and in FY23 another $105.3M funded from Plan Costs plus an additional $6 million from Other costs for LBES.

You could argue that the LBES should have been funded by R&D not from the SCN which would bring the FY23 overall figure of $1,135M budget figure down to $1,024M and if you add back in the FY20 $6M adv payment gives new total of $1,030M for the fourth Constellation, a matter of perception in keeping cost to near $billion per ship which can be important following the controversy after the Oct '20 CBO report claiming the Navy had underestimated Constellation cost by 40% based on Burke cost, said if the Navy’s estimate turned out to be accurate, the Constellation would be the least expensive surface combatant program of the past 50 years (measured on cost per thousand tons, light displacement) even in comparison to much less capable ships.

 

[Firefinder]

The only mission where I can see the 5in being relevant is staring down a chinese 'coast guard' ship at 200 yards (i.e. inside of missile range) and then seeing who can sink who first. Probably not worth it.

I'll take the 57mm for that mission any day, just based on sheer ROF. If not Phalanx in surface mode, just for sheer swiss cheese factor.

Ill take the 5 if it had a better rate of fire then the WW2 version at 20 shots a minute.

Something like the Italian 40 shot 5 inch gun or bring back that 100 shot gun the USN design will do the job just fine.

But the USN hates guns so...

 

[Moose]

Article from Dutch blog indicating that the Connie will be a leading contender for Norway's new Frigate program:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1663173887155400704

View: https://twitter.com/AlexLuck9/status/1663173887155400704?t=lGKXUPoiaHGH_PS7q0hiMw&s=19

 

[TomS]

Article from Dutch blog indicating that the Connie will be a leading contender for Norway's new Frigate program:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1663173887155400704

View: https://twitter.com/AlexLuck9/status/1663173887155400704?t=lGKXUPoiaHGH_PS7q0hiMw&s=19

"For example, the Americans often produce ten ships at a time"



Since when? Not in this century.

 

[SSgtC]

Article from Dutch blog indicating that the Connie will be a leading contender for Norway's new Frigate program:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1663173887155400704

View: https://twitter.com/AlexLuck9/status/1663173887155400704?t=lGKXUPoiaHGH_PS7q0hiMw&s=19

"For example, the Americans often produce ten ships at a time"



Since when? Not in this century.

They're technically not wrong. The Navy currently has 9 Arleigh Burkes under construction. That's more than most countries can hope to build at the same time.

 

[isayyo2]

They're technically not wrong. The Navy currently has 9 Arleigh Burkes under construction. That's more than most countries can hope to build at the same time.

I surprised myself and counted 21 Navy ships under construction, not including vessels with Sealift Command!

Upcoming US Navy Ship Commissionings

www.navycommissionings.org