FFG(X)

[Moose]

I'm interested to see how the effort/desire to introduce a second Frigate yard could get into the mix with export orders. Australian money is being used to help the SSN program increase output more generally, including for USN orders, could export orders do the same for the Connies?

 

[TomS]

I'm interested to see how the effort/desire to introduce a second Frigate yard could get into the mix with export orders. Australian money is being used to help the SSN program increase output more generally, including for USN orders, could export orders do the same for the Connies?

I feel like export customers might prefer to buy from the lead yard. Who wants to be the Guinea pig for a new shipbuilder?

But the availability of export sales might make the lead yard less inclined to fight against a second yard for USN orders.

 

[Moose]

I'm interested to see how the effort/desire to introduce a second Frigate yard could get into the mix with export orders. Australian money is being used to help the SSN program increase output more generally, including for USN orders, could export orders do the same for the Connies?

I feel like export customers might prefer to buy from the lead yard. Who wants to be the Guinea pig for a new shipbuilder?

But the availability of export sales might make the lead yard less inclined to fight against a second yard for USN orders.

Yes, I would pitch the idea to appropriators as "MM has a full docket between the existing buy and these expected export orders, so it's more clear than ever we need a second yard if we are going to increase production."

 

[Josh_TN]

I think long term the USN will need enough orders filled for a second yard, so I wouldn't think it would be a hard sell to anyone involved unless the Ozzies want local production. Otherwise, they already use predominantly US systems anyway; it would be an easy integration. They could perhaps in return get some maintenance contracts for USN ships in theater since both would be using the same platform.

 

[Cordy]

My understanding the driver for the Ozzie frigate was the home developed CEA radars, talk at one time of 18 to 20 flat panel arrays in X, S and L bands with six sided deck house to accommodate them all which top heavy and require lots of power and cooling.

Why they chose Type 26 as the platform in preference to Italian FREMM 6,700t (basis of the Constellation which was increased to 7,400t, incl'd additional 300t steel to strengthen hull when model tank testing at Carderock showed need due to stresses and bending) and Navantia F5000 (update of Hobart class ~7,000t ) as the Type 26 was the larger ship, presentation showed Hunter as an 8,800t ship and rumors circulating that in the design stage they have had to further increase the displacement. So expect not too different in size to a Burke and not too dissimilar in cost?

 

[Rhinocrates]

A schematic comparing the Types 23, 26, and 31 frigates and the Type 44 destroyer. The Type 26 'Global Combat Ship', at 149.9 m and 6,900-8000 tonnes is pretty close to the the Type 45, at 152m and 7,350-8,500 tonnes and considerably larger than the Type 31 'General Purpose Frigate' (138 m, 5,700 t) and the Type 23 (133 m, 4900 t). (Wikipedia)

If the Type 32 'Adaptable Strike Frigate' isn't a Batch II 31, it may well be smaller than a 31. According to this article (https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-bae-systems-adaptable-strike-frigate-concept), the only - and purely conceptual - design released (by BAE) is ~130m, ~6000 t. BMT's Venator proposal for the original Type 31 brief was 117 m and 3,200 t.

In that context then, the Type 26 is a pretty hefty frigate, and as Cordy says, not far from a Burke.

I've used quotes because these labels are really flags these ships fly when sailing through the corridors of Whitehall. The Type 26 could be called an anti-submarine destroyer when in a carrier group and a light cruiser in its nominal role to roam long range independently as a 'global combat ship'. Officially, the Illustrious class were, as Sir Humphrey Appleby or Francis Urquhart would probably have said, 'You might very well think that they are aircraft carriers, but I couldn't possibly call them that. Instead, they are, shall we say, through-deck cruisers.'

 

[Cordy]

USNI June 20, write up of the Constellation Land Based Engineering Site, LBES and the LBTS taking shape in the Philadelphia Navy Yard.
The Dec 2021 Constellation Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) reported "SCN Program Office Estimate (POE) includes $322.1M Land Based Engineering Site (LBES) cost estimate" funded from the Constellation SCN build costs under Plan and Other Costs.

https://news.usni.org/2023/06/20/frigate-land-based-engineering-site-taking-shape-in-the-philadelphia-navy-yard#more-103801

 

[aonestudio]

SECNAV Names Future Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate Lafayette

Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Carlos Del Toro announced in Paris that a future Constellation-class guided-missile frigate will be named USS Lafayette (FFG 65), June 29.

www.navy.mil

Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate Lafayette

Graphic rendering of the future USS Lafayette (FFG 65), named in honor of Marquis de Lafayette and his service during the American Revolutionary War. USS Lafayette is the fourth of the new Constellation-class frigates, scheduled to commission in 2029. The Constellation-class guided-missile...

www.dvidshub.net

Navy Secretary Names Fourth Frigate After Revolutionary Hero Marquis de Lafayette - USNI News

The Navy is naming its fourth Constellation-class frigate in honor of Marquis de Lafayette, a Frenchman who helped the United States win the Revolutionary War against the British. The fourth frigate will bear the name USS Lafayette (FFG-65), Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced...

news.usni.org

U.S. Navy's Fourth Constellation-Class Frigate to be Named 'Lafayette' - Naval News

U.S. Secretary of the Navy Del Toro announced in Paris that a future Constellation-class frigate will be named USS Lafayette (FFG 65).

www.navalnews.com

 

[Moose]

SECNAV Names Future Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate Lafayette

Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Carlos Del Toro announced in Paris that a future Constellation-class guided-missile frigate will be named USS Lafayette (FFG 65), June 29.

www.navy.mil

Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate Lafayette

Graphic rendering of the future USS Lafayette (FFG 65), named in honor of Marquis de Lafayette and his service during the American Revolutionary War. USS Lafayette is the fourth of the new Constellation-class frigates, scheduled to commission in 2029. The Constellation-class guided-missile...

www.dvidshub.net

Navy Secretary Names Fourth Frigate After Revolutionary Hero Marquis de Lafayette - USNI News

The Navy is naming its fourth Constellation-class frigate in honor of Marquis de Lafayette, a Frenchman who helped the United States win the Revolutionary War against the British. The fourth frigate will bear the name USS Lafayette (FFG-65), Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced...

news.usni.org

U.S. Navy's Fourth Constellation-Class Frigate to be Named 'Lafayette' - Naval News

U.S. Secretary of the Navy Del Toro announced in Paris that a future Constellation-class frigate will be named USS Lafayette (FFG 65).

www.navalnews.com

An excellent name for a Frigate.

 

[TomS]

Solid names so far. And yes, confirmed that they are not sticking to C names.

 

[TomS]

Also, the obligatory ship's theme song.

View: https://youtu.be/JDL6R2KS3xg

 

[1635yankee]

LaFayette is a good name.

Let's just avoid naming more after traitors. If we're going to name a ship after Raphael Semmes, we should name one after Benedict Arnold.

 

[Moose]

LaFayette is a good name.

Let's just avoid naming more after traitors. If we're going to name a ship after Raphael Semmes, we should name one after Benedict Arnold.

There hasn't been one named for Semmes since 91 and unlikely to ever be one again.

 

[TeourdBeourglaer]

I'd rather have 48 cells than 32 regardless of the mission. Let's assume the USN will always have SSN's and DDG's aplenty, in a manner in which they are always available for quick deployment to any given area-- and the frigates are "only" tasked to ASW and AA missions alongside a carrier or surface group.

That's, say, 12 ASROCS for ASW. Which leaves us 20 cells on the FREMM-based ship or 36 cells on a Adm. Gorshkov analogue available for anti-air load out. If we split the FREMM load out with 20 ESSM and 15 Standards, we can split a single Adm. Gorshkov with 28 ESSM and 29 Standards. That's almost twice as many Standards to fleet air defense, and 40% more ESSM carried.

Or alternatively, two FREMM frigates bring 2/3 the cells of a Burke Flight III, while two Adm. Gorshkov's bring 100% of the Burke's cells to the fight. And the fewer cells the Burkes have to expend, the longer they can effectively stay at sea. Much rather rotate frigates back and forth to reload magazines than have to take the Burkes off station.

To say nothing of scenarios in which the Navy finds itself in situations where only a frigate is available to be quickly dispatched...

I'm fairly certain there are provisions to increase to 48 cells in later "Blocs". The Constellation contract says 20 FFGs, but from what I read from USN they want 50 at the least and if that's the case, there will be multiple "Bloc" changes to be sure...

 

[Jimmo952]

Congress ordered the Navy to study increasing the VLS count to 48. The Navy came back and said it was too late in the process for the first block of ships. Adding the cells would cause the delivery time to slip.

There is a real good chance VLS count will be increased in a later block.

 

[Firefinder]

As is the First Block with 32 VLS will have 16 Navel Strike Mussile tubes midships. Thats an decent antiship and structure load there.

Throw in ESSM and Standard Missile with a handful of ASROCs...

Looking at a potential of 10 quad ESSMs, 10 SM6s, and 12 ASROCs with 16 NSMs.

Which is a decent load.

So long as you dont need to load up Tomahawks they be good for most threats that dont need the 1970s era 1000 pound cratering making beat sticks.

Thru the V ASROCs are getting up there in AGE, and there is no replacement in sight. So who knows how long they have left.

 

[Moose]

Fewer ASROC and SM-6, more SM-2 is likely.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There's a VGAS proposal out there that would have fitted one, complete with helical magazine, into a Trident launch tube. Capable of firing from persicope depth, only the muzzle would have been above water.

The version I'm familiar with was completely contained inside the tube, the subs would broach the ship, flop the hatch, punch some 10-20 rounds out before blasting a jet of nitrogen through the bore and closing the hatch, then dropping back down to only having the periscope out of the water.

 

[TomS]

Fewer ASROC and SM-6, more SM-2 is likely.

SM-6 isn't in the baseline equipment announced for FFG-62, though of course Congress is pushing for it to be added (along with Tomahawk).

And even VLA was only listed as a future possibility. Which means the basic load out is SM-2 Block IIIC (MR Active) and ESSM Block 2.

No Timeline Yet to Add Tomahawk, SM-6 to Constellation Frigates, Says Program Manager - USNI News

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – The Navy is still working through a timeline to meet a congressional mandate to add Standard Missile 6 and the Tomahawk Cruise Missiles to future Constellation-class guided-missile frigates, service officials told USNI News. A requirement from the Fiscal Year 2023 National...

news.usni.org

Thru the V ASROCs are getting up there in AGE, and there is no replacement in sight. So who knows how long they have left.

VLA was on the US offer to Greece in 2021, and LM still lists it. I don't know when the USN last bought any, but it must be fairly recent. The booster seems to be available since it's been used in recent demos of various missiles like LRASM.

 

[Moose]

VLA-ER is still kicking around, but without funding.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Now, to catch up on the rest of this.

Speaking of weapons, why did the FFG(X) get saddled with just a 57mm gun when it would have made more sense to mount either a 76mm or even a 5 inch gun?

Think it's been answered, but something I didn't see mentioned is that the 57mm has greater throw weight per minute than a 76mm.

As for RCS reduction, this definitely makes counter measures more effective against inbound weapons. But in the age of orbital SAR and aircraft ISAR radars, is a warship really hiding what it is? Sure you could jam the radar that is trying to ID you, but then you minimally identify yourself explicitly as a hostile warship. The shape of something like Zummwalt would be impossible to mistake for something else if you could establish even a vague outline of it.

It's the difference between knowing "there's a ship somewhere over thataway" and "there's a ship RIGHT THERE". The Zumwalts are stealthy enough to make it hard for a missile seeker to hit them. Just like how F-22s and F-35s are more-or-less invisible to missile seekers, but show up to long range search radars that use lower frequencies and huge antennas.

That's also the 30mm Mk44, not the 57mm Mk110. Plus, no guided rounds. The main swarm-killing will be done with ALaMO and/or weapons launched from helos/UAVs.

The .50cals are point-blank defense and they're included because they're cheap and the Navy can pretty easily train Specialist Bonehead to do some damage with it without taking a big bite out of the time needed to train said sailor on other things.

Seaman Bonehead will also enjoy training to use the .50s, so is more likely to remember how when SHTF.

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...

Neutral Particle Beams in the atmosphere? In a decade?!? Dude, you're funny.

No dispute that they'll need to acquire the data rights. It's just not clear that the contract as awarded furnishes those rights.
It could be like JLTV: the offerers were required to submit pricing for an option for the USG to acquire data rights. The USG later paid for the option.

Remember that legally speaking, "shall" means "must happen" so the company refusing to sell data rights means that they lose the bid.

Which is strange, considering that the USN started as a small ship Navy and built some of the best small ships in the world. But somewhere along the way, it forgot how to build small combatants

Even when the USN was first starting, the Original 6 Frigates were the biggest "frigates" afloat, and in all honesty were closer to 64gun 3rd rate ships of the line than to the RN's 36gun Frigates.

Chris Kyle?

No. There might be a movie about him, but apparently the guy was not very cool to be around.

My guess is that they figured 32 cells gives the ship a legitimate anti-air capability, which would let them perform convoy escort and independent operations without needing a Burke or a Tico riding shotgun.

Edit: As for the buy rate, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that money is having to go to the Columbia-class boomers instead of a frigate.

My expectation is that a large convoy will get one Burke or Tico for the escort force flag, then everything else would be frigates. A small convoy wouldn't even get the escort force flag.

 

[SSgtC]

Even when the USN was first starting, the Original 6 Frigates were the biggest "frigates" afloat, and in all honesty were closer to 64gun 3rd rate ships of the line than to the RN's 36gun Frigates.

True. Kinda. The British considered the American 44s to be 4th rate ships. Which were technically ships-of-the-line, but by the late 1700s, were considered too small to actually stand in the line of battle. The issue that the American 44s had is that around half of their broadside weight was contained in short range carronades. So at close ranges, they could throw a broadside equal to that of a small 74, anything much beyond a pistol shot and their broadside weight would drop from 680 pounds, to 360. That was still heavier than 90%+ of frigates at that time, but not good if she was facing a true 2 decker which could throw 800+ pounds/broadside at her.

 

[Scott Kenny]

True. Kinda. The British considered the American 44s to be 4th rate ships. Which were technically ships-of-the-line, but by the late 1700s, were considered too small to actually stand in the line of battle. The issue that the American 44s had is that around half of their broadside weight was contained in short range carronades. So at close ranges, they could throw a broadside equal to that of a small 74, anything much beyond a pistol shot and their broadside weight would drop from 680 pounds, to 360. That was still heavier than 90%+ of frigates at that time, but not good if she was facing a true 2 decker which could throw 800+ pounds/broadside at her.

Oh, absolutely true, if an American 44 was stuck fighting a 2-decker, the US captain was screwed.

But that was also a mistake of the US captain's own making, because the 44s could also outrun any ship of the line.

 

[Cordy]

Congress ordered the Navy to study increasing the VLS count to 48. The Navy came back and said it was too late in the process for the first block of ships. Adding the cells would cause the delivery time to slip.

There is a real good chance VLS count will be increased in a later block.

The Navy '23 30 year plan mentioned a FFG-62  Flight II, presumably planning to increase the size of the frigate so as up the number of VLS cells from 32 to 48.

Don't think the Navy is serious in building fifty plus FFG-62s any time soon, current 5 year plan only shows 'sawtooth' build rate, two one year and then reverting back to one the following year and no mention of when it plans to bring on-line the second shipyard, at its peak Navy ordered seven FFG-7s per year from three different shipyards.

PS The 2017 graphic for the FFG(X) mentioned a "Mk41 VLS supports VLA for all-wx stand-off ASW weapon (future)" to replace the ASROC developed 70 years ago in the '50s , but far as know Navy have never funded the new system.

 

[TomS]

PS The 2017 graphic for the FFG(X) mentioned a "Mk41 VLS supports VLA for all-wx stand-off ASW weapon (future)" to replace the ASROC developed 70 years ago in the '50s , but far as know Navy have never funded the new system.

The US Navy has procured hundreds of VLA (LM says more than 1000 delivered, including some for Japan.) Most recently, they've upgraded the inventory from Mk 46 torpedoes to Mk 54s.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think it’s likely that FFGX production increases in the future. The current yard claims it is capable of two/year and the USN is already contemplating who else could build it. 50 might be a stretch but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was greater that 20. All of this is predicated on the design being successful when it hits the water. Once several are operating in good order I think things accelerate.

 

[TomS]

The Navy '23 30 year plan mentioned a FFG-62  Flight II, presumably planning to increase the size of the frigate so as up the number of VLS cells from 32 to 48.

I'm struggling to find this document. Or rather, to find a version that mentions the FFG-62 Flight II.

CBO report:

An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2023 Shipbuilding Plan

At a Glance Each year, as directed by the Congress, the Department of Defense submits a report with the President’s budget describing the Navy’s planned inventory, purchases, deliveries, and retirements of ships in its fleet for the next 30 years. In a departure from all previous shipbuilding...

www.cbo.gov

This seems to be the only official source that mentions an FFG-62 Flight II. It also provides a link to the Navy Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2023 (April 2022)
https://go.usa.gov/xJtjj

The second one does not mention FFG-62 Flight II at all as far as I can see.

 

[Cordy]

I'm struggling to find this document. Or rather, to find a version that mentions the FFG-62 Flight II.

CBO report:

An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2023 Shipbuilding Plan

At a Glance Each year, as directed by the Congress, the Department of Defense submits a report with the President’s budget describing the Navy’s planned inventory, purchases, deliveries, and retirements of ships in its fleet for the next 30 years. In a departure from all previous shipbuilding...

www.cbo.gov

This seems to be the only official source that mentions an FFG-62 Flight II. It also provides a link to the Navy Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2023 (April 2022)
https://go.usa.gov/xJtjj

The second one does not mention FFG-62 Flight II at all as far as I can see.

I did not keep original ref but as you say the Congressional Budget Office Nov '22 report "An Analysis of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2023 Shipbuilding Plan" p.4 Table 3 refers to the Flight II, where the analysis shows the following for the three alternative 30 year shipbuilding plans for 2023 proposed by the Navy and as you say since then no further mention.
Alternative 1 - 17 FFG 62s & 35 FFG-62 Flight IIs - Total 52
Alternative 2 - 11 FFG-62s & 44 FFG-62 Flight IIs - Total 55
Alternative 3 - 17 FFG-62s & 40 FFG-62 Flight IIs - Total 57

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-11/58447-shipbuilding.pdf

 

[Josh_TN]

I like any of those numbers; I hope there's some serious plans in that direction.

 

[donnage99]

Modern radars need big ships to be sufficiently stable.

It's why the Constellation-class FFGs are close to twice the displacement of the Perry class, despite carrying about the same weapons load!

but you would expect for 10,000+ tonnes they would put more than just 16 Mk 41 for very short legged ESSM and 8 shortlegged NSM

 

[kqcke for you]

anything can be good for its intended requirement but still a terrible design because its requirements can be fundamentally flawed.

Sure, 10,000 tonnes overglorified coastguard ship with the price tag of a naval cruiser will fullfill the its coastguard requirements and its real requirement which is avert the ire of the more committed NATO members but that doesn't mean imperically it is a good ship in cost vs capability analysis.

Which requirments is flawed? That its supposed to opperate for 2 years ? The armament ? Just because its 10.000t heavy it doesnt mean it needs 600 VLS cells. I mean ESSM Block 2 is +50km and it gets 64. If we Look at the ship its replace has Just 16 NSSM Missile with half the official range.

 

[Cordy]

Modern radars need big ships to be sufficiently stable.

It's why the Constellation-class FFGs are close to twice the displacement of the Perry class, despite carrying about the same weapons load!

Not so sure e.g. the Israeli 1,900t Sa'ar 6 corvette with its Elta S-band EL/M-2248 MF-STAR radar has test fired the 150 km? BARAK LRAD missile and Saab won the Sep 2019 contract for the new Finnish 3,900t Pohjanmaa-class ship radars and in Jul 2021 the contract for the MLU of the German 4,500t Brandenburg-Class (F123) ASW frigates both their AESA GaN S-band Sea Giraffe 4A FF and Sea Giraffe 1X radars, have seen instrumented range quoted for the 4A FF of 400 km and ability to track Mach 5 missiles which think more than adequate for a frigate, anything over and above that would classify as over kill for a frigate.

That would more than imply other drivers for Constellation's near twice the displacement of the Perry class unless the EASR SPY-6(V)3 radar very high in top weight?

 

[kqcke for you]

Maybe its cooling? After all the Radar of Constellation have the same capabilitys as the Spy 1d radar

 

[kqcke for you]

Which requirments is flawed? That its supposed to opperate for 2 years ? The armament ? Just because its 10.000t heavy it doesnt mean it needs 600 VLS cells. I mean ESSM Block 2 is +50km and it gets 64. If we Look at the ship its replace has Just 16 NSSM Missile with half the official range.

And for sure there some tonnes that should not be there but its a symptom of a disease which is deep in the country. Its a child of the failed Support for an active Bundeswehr which can do its job its supposed to do and a goverment who think they are a superpower.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I'd more worried about someone trying cram significant capabilities into a circa-3000-ton "heartburn frigate" than I would be about a 10,000 ton OPV. People may conflate cost with size, but larger size is beneficial for access to machinery for maintainence, not to mention survivability, and in some cases can lower crew requirements, very important for any WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) country.

Stick a Frigate superstructure on a ULCC hull for all I care, the expensive bit is the frigate superstructure, not the 500,000 ton hull.

 

[TomS]

Maybe its cooling? After all the Radar of Constellation have the same capabilitys as the Spy 1d radar

Habitability is probably the biggest driver. Assuming the FFG-61 follows the FREMM design, all of the crew have staterooms (4-6 people each for enlisted, 2-4 for officers) with private restrooms/heads. That alone could account for most of the displacement increase.

 

[donnage99]

Which requirments is flawed? That its supposed to opperate for 2 years ? The armament ? Just because its 10.000t heavy it doesnt mean it needs 600 VLS cells. I mean ESSM Block 2 is +50km and it gets 64. If we Look at the ship its replace has Just 16 NSSM Missile with half the official range.

answer: my second paragraph.

also no one is arguing that it needs 600 vls. that's strawmanning

 

[kqcke for you]

answer: my second paragraph.

also no one is arguing that it needs 600 vls. that's strawmanning

Then what do you think are the Coastguard requirments?

 

[Moose]

Habitability is probably the biggest driver. Assuming the FFG-61 follows the FREMM design, all of the crew have staterooms (4-6 people each for enlisted, 2-4 for officers) with private restrooms/heads. That alone could account for most of the displacement increase.

Endurance. Gotta have the food, fuel, facilities, redundancy, spares, etc for long Pacific patrols. A Sa'ar 6 can go make port visits, but just keeping a patrol going in the Red Sea is a bit of a lift.

 

[TomS]

Endurance. Gotta have the food, fuel, facilities, redundancy, spares, etc for long Pacific patrols. A Sa'ar 6 can go make port visits, but just keeping a patrol going in the Red Sea is a bit of a lift.

Also, seakeeping in unpleasant conditions like the North Atlantic or Southern Ocean.

And of course, damage control, specifically damaged stability, which seems to have driven the weight gain of FFG-61 over FREMM.