FFG(X)

Jimmo952 said:
Not a bad idea but the negative is you would have to let the "bad guys" get pretty close to your before you engage. Something doesn't go quite right and you will get hit because there won't time to do anything else.
Click to expand...
He’s talking about for counter drone work.
We’re already letting things get close so we can save money by using guns.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
The trade-off being that that 76mm would have more range and likely a higher probability per kill per individual projectile. But the same general rule probably applies if you go to an even bigger gun like 127mm. But of course the larger the gun system the more weight and volume required.

And I guess there is the question if a gun-based CIWS in a smaller caliber is still desirable as a last line of defense.


Ballistically that was a high performer and had a lot of the basic right. But it was seen as something of a dead-end in the missile age and it was a maintenance nightmare, so they just gave up on it rather than trying to fix it. OTO Melera stuck with 76mm starting with the 1950s variants all the way up to today's models and I imagine they are pretty much as good as a modern version of the 3"/70 would be.

I do think it would be worthwhile to dust off the work done on the 60mm ETC type gun the US Navy toyed with back in the 1990s for a bit. It might not be suitable for adding to existing classes of warships but the future DDG(X) and whatever else could be made with provisions for it.

As for the FFG-62, the whole thing just makes me shake my head. I don't know who is trying to shift blame to who at the moment, but I can't help but feel the Navy is far more responsible for the ridiculously long schedule and likely cost increases than FMM is.
Click to expand...
Range difference isn’t that great. See my above links.
About 2000 yds.

Again doesn’t matter if a single round covers more area if unless it’s twice or larger area when you’re putting out nearly 100% more rounds and 11% over all more explosives in the same amount of time.

And yea gun based systems are still desirable for CIWS. As you can see from so many modern designs from the last decade to now utilizing 30-57mm sized guns for the role. The Red Sea is confirming this as guns are being regularly used to take out drones instead of missiles.

Also for lower end missiles.
I have a pal was WEPs for a freedom and instructed incoming officers for LCSes and instructed that the 57 was the primary AAW weapon due to the way the SEARAM computer ‘thinks’.
 
Last edited:
Jimmo952 said:
Why?
Click to expand...
While I was partially joking , there is something to be said for a gun mount that can produce a wartime rate of fire of 240 rounds per minute.
I knew a guy who been a Gunnery artificer aboard Canadian Frigates in the early 70s.there was a wartime setting and a peacetime rate of fire.
I suspect that the 3"/70 mount would be more then handy to have in the Red Sea.
Also on another website there was a posting by Peter Parkinson who served aboard one of the Tigers in the early to mid 60's.
I'd hate to be on the receiving end of all that VT fused HE from one or more of those mounts .
 
Last edited:
GK Dundas said:
While I was partially joking , there is something to be said for a gun mount that can produce a wartime rate of fire of 240 rounds per minute.
I knew a guy who been a Gunnery artificer aboard Canadian Frigates in the early 70s.there was a wartime setting and a peacetime rate of fire.
I suspect that the 3"/70 mount would be more then handy to have in the Red Sea.
Also on another website there was a posting by Peter Parkinson who served aboard one of the Tigers in the early to mid 60's.
I'd hate to be on the receiving end of all that VT fused HE from one or more of those mounts .
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for that 240 RPM, because navweaps says 90-100 RPM…

And a range of 19.5k yds means lower RPM and range than an Oto 76, means it would be worse than the Oto, which as we’ve established is worse than the mk110.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Do you have a source for that 240 RPM, because navweaps says 90-100 RPM…
Click to expand...
The claim was per mount, not per barrel, and there are two barrels per mounting, on top of which the UK version demonstrated 120rpm during development.
 
DWG said:
The claim was per mount, not per barrel, and there are two barrels per mounting, on top of which the UK version demonstrated 120rpm during development.
Click to expand...
So per barrel is 180-200 RPM not 240 like you claimed.

During development? So not during actual service, drills/exercises in the real world?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
So per barrel is 180-200 RPM not 240 like you claimed.

During development? So not during actual service, drills/exercises in the real world?
Click to expand...
It would really help if you checked who posted what, and did some easy googling. If you check the Navweaps entry on the RN/RCN 3"/70, you'd see that 1) the 3"/70 demonstrated 120 rpm/barrel and 2) it was used in peacetime with frangible pins (aluminium vs steel) in the feedtrain, which were to be replaced in wartime. So peacetime RPM figures don't necessarily apply
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.navalnews.com

Can Unmanned MUSVs and NOMARS Replace the Troubled FFG-62 Frigate Program? - Naval News

With a price tag approaching $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion dollars each for the USS Constellation (FFG-62) frigate, Naval News asked RAND and CSIS if the Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV) and the DARPA No Manning Required Ship (NOMARS) can replace the troubled FFG-62 frigate program.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
Click to expand...
Any newspaper headline that ends in a question mark can safely be answered with "NO".
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.navalnews.com

Can Unmanned MUSVs and NOMARS Replace the Troubled FFG-62 Frigate Program? - Naval News

With a price tag approaching $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion dollars each for the USS Constellation (FFG-62) frigate, Naval News asked RAND and CSIS if the Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV) and the DARPA No Manning Required Ship (NOMARS) can replace the troubled FFG-62 frigate program.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
Click to expand...

If Americans were so trigger happy with the desire to terminate ongoing projects during the cold war as they are now, we'd be speaking Russian lol.

Like seriously, just built the damn thing and make the second better than the first and, iron more issues found in the second out with the third and so on.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.navalnews.com

Can Unmanned MUSVs and NOMARS Replace the Troubled FFG-62 Frigate Program? - Naval News

With a price tag approaching $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion dollars each for the USS Constellation (FFG-62) frigate, Naval News asked RAND and CSIS if the Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV) and the DARPA No Manning Required Ship (NOMARS) can replace the troubled FFG-62 frigate program.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
Click to expand...

MUSV has literally no sensors or decision-making capability. Of course it can't replace a crewed frigate.
 
Well sensors can be part of the payload, but clearthey would be drastically inferior. It’s a click bait piece, not a real proposition.
 
Jimmo952 said:
Let's hope it's not a real proposition.
Click to expand...
It probably is a real proposition in a devil advact type of way.

Basically thing to point at and show why the fuck its a bad idea.

Congress, no matter who in charge, are window licking idiots at the best of time they need examples with pretty pictures they get dumber...
 
Firefinder said:
It probably is a real proposition in a devil advact type of way.

Basically thing to point at and show why the fuck its a bad idea.

Congress, no matter who in charge, are window licking idiots at the best of time they need examples with pretty pictures they get dumber...
Click to expand...

Anything can be made to look good in PowerPoint.
 
FFX honked up, Columbia Class now behind schedule, and friggin rust bucket looking ships now. In regards to the rusty ships, I think new and improved haze gray paint comes from California, is tofu and lemon grass based with just a touch of dip shit avocado oil for the catalyst. But in CA, catalyst means exactly what they assume, a list of cats. When I was in the USN (1980s), CVN-65 and our other ships were maintained always.
 
Hydroman said:
FFX honked up, Columbia Class now behind schedule, and friggin rust bucket looking ships now. In regards to the rusty ships, I think new and improved haze gray paint comes from California, is tofu and lemon grass based with just a touch of dip shit avocado oil for the catalyst. But in CA, catalyst means exactly what they assume, a list of cats. When I was in the USN (1980s), CVN-65 and our other ships were maintained always.
Click to expand...

Tbh, I think Columbia is far more egregious due to its strategic importance. While for the Connie I personally just accepted that it'll be a shitty journey to the first ship and hope (for the US and for the sake of cool ships) that they'll introduce improvements and streamline the process with the subsequent vessels.

It's not like Constellation entering service a year or two sooner or later actually changes the overarching issues with US shipbuilding and the strategic shift it was meant to address.

It's the moment where I'd say "I hope they'll learn from their mistakes for the next program", but being the pessimistic bitch that I am, I know full well that the next program (DDGX?) will probably be just another cluster fuck. Something in US shipbuilding, the Navy and DoD has gone fundamentally wrong. It cannot be that after the cold war ended everyone suddenly forgot how to be competent, I refuse to accept that.
 
EmoBirb said:
Tbh, I think Columbia is far more egregious due to its strategic importance. While for the Connie I personally just accepted that it'll be a shitty journey to the first ship and hope (for the US and for the sake of cool ships) that they'll introduce improvements and streamline the process with the subsequent vessels.

It's not like Constellation entering service a year or two sooner or later actually changes the overarching issues with US shipbuilding and the strategic shift it was meant to address.

It's the moment where I'd say "I hope they'll learn from their mistakes for the next program", but being the pessimistic bitch that I am, I know full well that the next program (DDGX?) will probably be just another cluster fuck. Something in US shipbuilding, the Navy and DoD has gone fundamentally wrong. It cannot be that after the cold war ended everyone suddenly forgot how to be competent, I refuse to accept that.
Click to expand...
Agree with these points!
 
Agreed that the biggest issue is the delays in Columbia-class.

Sadly, I think those are largely caused by the difficulty in hiring submarine-qualified welders, as well as the delays attached to nuclear plants.
 
EmoBirb said:
Tbh, I think Columbia is far more egregious due to its strategic importance. While for the Connie I personally just accepted that it'll be a shitty journey to the first ship and hope (for the US and for the sake of cool ships) that they'll introduce improvements and streamline the process with the subsequent vessels.

It's not like Constellation entering service a year or two sooner or later actually changes the overarching issues with US shipbuilding and the strategic shift it was meant to address.

It's the moment where I'd say "I hope they'll learn from their mistakes for the next program", but being the pessimistic bitch that I am, I know full well that the next program (DDGX?) will probably be just another cluster fuck. Something in US shipbuilding, the Navy and DoD has gone fundamentally wrong. It cannot be that after the cold war ended everyone suddenly forgot how to be competent, I refuse to accept that.
Click to expand...
We used to know how to do this. I agree, the Columbia class is very important and all are important. I don't like being pessimistic either but we have to get our act together soon.
 
EmoBirb said:
It's the moment where I'd say "I hope they'll learn from their mistakes for the next program", but being the pessimistic bitch that I am, I know full well that the next program (DDGX?) will probably be just another cluster fuck.
Click to expand...
What do you think NAVSEA did wrong with the Constellation program?

We all know that the FREMM derivative was the only serious option for the FFG(X) program, which meant FMM (which seems to be the source of all the issues) was going to be the lead yard by default.

Who would’ve thought that having a yard that’s never built anything larger than an LCS redesign a foreign vessel twice its size? And at significantly higher DC standards, with its workforce occupied with the stupid Saudi SSC?

The rumor I’ve heard is Fincantiari would only sell the design if FMM got the build contract. This tracks in my mind, especially considering Mike Gallagher (House Rep from WI-8) is on the HASC and would’ve been advocating for FMM in appropriation hearings.

Knowing that, NAVSEA correctly choose to move ahead with the FREMM derivative, fully knowing that FMM is woefully unequipped to build such a ship. The choice was accept the delays and build at FMM, or not get a frigate.

DDG(X) will certainly experience issues, but I can say without a shadow of a doubt they won’t be anything like Zumwalt, LCS, or FFG-62 experienced. DDG(X) is simply reusing existing technology in a new hull, there’s no arbitrary constraints placed on it the way Constellation has.

EmoBirb said:
Something in US shipbuilding, the Navy and DoD has gone fundamentally wrong. It cannot be that after the cold war ended everyone suddenly forgot how to be competent, I refuse to accept that.
Click to expand...
It is quite literally that. Look at how many Cold War yards closed during the 1980s. Todd LA, Todd Seattle, Fall River, Avondale, all the Bethlehem Steel yards, etc. The few that did survive laid off career employees, and saw mass retirements in the past 40 yearly. We are quite literally trying to rebuild an industry from scratch.

The U.S. will never build as many ships as China. The yards have all closed, and American labor and material costs too much. China will always outpace us and have a larger fleet.

But maybe that’s okay. Nowadays we tend to think of Reagan’s 600 Ship Navy as some sort of “glory days,” but even then the VMF was significantly larger than the USN, we still had manning issues, and we still had maintenance issues. Acknowledge we will never be able to match the PLAN in shear numbers, and find a way to play the game smarter. Make the money go farther.
 
EmoBirb said:
Tbh, I think Columbia is far more egregious due to its strategic importance. While for the Connie I personally just accepted that it'll be a shitty journey to the first ship and hope (for the US and for the sake of cool ships) that they'll introduce improvements and streamline the process with the subsequent vessels.

It's not like Constellation entering service a year or two sooner or later actually changes the overarching issues with US shipbuilding and the strategic shift it was meant to address.

It's the moment where I'd say "I hope they'll learn from their mistakes for the next program", but being the pessimistic bitch that I am, I know full well that the next program (DDGX?) will probably be just another cluster fuck. Something in US shipbuilding, the Navy and DoD has gone fundamentally wrong. It cannot be that after the cold war ended everyone suddenly forgot how to be competent, I refuse to accept that.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t change much on the admin side, but it’s quite likely that it reduces destroyer OPTEMPO giving their machinery and crews much needed breaks, and lowering maintenance requirements for destroyers.
 
June 5 - Testifying before the HASC seapower and projection committee Acting assistant secretary of the Navy for R & D and acquisition Brett Seidle "Pressed on progress updates for the long-delayed lead ship of the new Constellation class of frigates, Seidle had some good news: following a surge of designers to the shipyard in Marinette, Wisc., over the last 12 to 18 months, ship design is now 83 percent complete, with a “functional … stable design” expected by this summer."

Would note after Contract award in April 30, 2020, five years later the design is still only 83% complete. Sub Brief said in his video 8:20 that Congress would fund no money for Constellation if the design not finalized by May?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgkX7Txgeak&t=1662s
 
Cordy said:
June 5 - Testifying before the HASC seapower and projection committee Acting assistant secretary of the Navy for R & D and acquisition Brett Seidle "Pressed on progress updates for the long-delayed lead ship of the new Constellation class of frigates, Seidle had some good news: following a surge of designers to the shipyard in Marinette, Wisc., over the last 12 to 18 months, ship design is now 83 percent complete, with a “functional … stable design” expected by this summer."

Would note after Contract award in April 30, 2020, five years later the design is still only 83% complete. Sub Brief said in his video 8:20 that Congress would fund no money for Constellation if the design not finalized by May?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgkX7Txgeak&t=1662s
Click to expand...
I’ve said it for a while now, I wouldn’t be surprised if this program got cancelled.

The class is not what I think the USN needs, but in general we just need more hulls so cancellation would really not be a good thing.
 
Cordy said:
June 5 - Testifying before the HASC seapower and projection committee Acting assistant secretary of the Navy for R & D and acquisition Brett Seidle "Pressed on progress updates for the long-delayed lead ship of the new Constellation class of frigates, Seidle had some good news: following a surge of designers to the shipyard in Marinette, Wisc., over the last 12 to 18 months, ship design is now 83 percent complete, with a “functional … stable design” expected by this summer."
Click to expand...
I've got a feeling I saw '83% complete' stated somewhere several months ago. If they're aiming for completion 'this summer' (so no later than the end of September), I'd rather have hoped to see some movement by now.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I’ve said it for a while now, I wouldn’t be surprised if this program got cancelled.

The class is not what I think the USN needs, but in general we just need more hulls so cancellation would really not be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't the USN need a smaller surface combatant that can free up the DDGs for tasks they're genuinely needed for?

The Connies seem infinitely more useful than the LCS tbh
 
EmoBirb said:
The Connies seem infinitely more useful than the LCS tbh
Click to expand...
For direct conflict in the Pacific? Absolutely.
For showing the flag, narco hunting, MCM, and anti-piracy patrols? Absolutely not.

Even in a war with China, LCSs will see significant use, just not in the 1st Island Chain. They'll be picking up the slack in Europe, the Middle East, and hunting the Maritime Militia.
 
that_person said:
For direct conflict in the Pacific? Absolutely.
For showing the flag, narco hunting, MCM, and anti-piracy patrols? Absolutely not.

Even in a war with China, LCSs will see significant use, just not in the 1st Island Chain. They'll be picking up the slack in Europe, the Middle East, and hunting the Maritime Militia.
Click to expand...
This recent CAVASHIPS podcast spoke very positively of the LCS and that the USN behind closed doors is today very happy with the capability.
 
that_person said:
For direct conflict in the Pacific? Absolutely.
For showing the flag, narco hunting, MCM, and anti-piracy patrols? Absolutely not.

Even in a war with China, LCSs will see significant use, just not in the 1st Island Chain. They'll be picking up the slack in Europe, the Middle East, and hunting the Maritime Militia.
Click to expand...

Surely for litoral duties the LCS are more suited, given they were designed for that environment and mission profile specifically.

But the priority for the Navy, geopolitically speaking, is obviously a war in the Pacific, or more accurately to avoid such a war through strength or be able to fight such a war to a victory or stalemate at least.

And with that in mind a genuine frigate that can be deployed to the Indo-Pacific but also do missions in Europe and the Middle East to free up destroyers seems more useful. Although obviously cost ballooned quite a bit.

The issue I see is that no ship came off the line perfect, there were always incremental improvements. So I don't think it's fair to judge the Constellation until the second or third ship entered service. Perhaps they're lemons, maybe they're actually decent. First they have to finish the damn thing though and that's the biggest issue but also not exclusive to the Constellation Class, being behind schedule and not getting things done is currently emblematic for US shipbuilding.

Side note: with regards to patrols, stopping drug trafficking, would a genuine Corvette not be the ideal choice for that? Perhaps with a hull that's shared with the Coast Guard.
 
EmoBirb said:
patrols, stopping drug trafficking, would a genuine Corvette not be the ideal choice for that?
Click to expand...
That is a serious debate.

Which also falls under the age old debate of how to classified ships

Cause when you look at what you need to do drug interdiction and like.

The LCS basically fit the bill perfectly.

Have enough weapons to make getting froggy with them look extremely stupid to even idiots.

Big enough hello deck for all types of helicopters and Im pretty sure the Independences can do multi copter and drones ops at the same time allowing them to lock down a massive area.*

And fast enough to run down anything from anywhere in its AO with endurance to do so repeatedly in weather or situations where you can use the helicopters.

And big enough to carry a detechment of boarders with all their gear plus any prisoners for booking for when you find the smugglers.

Both LCS design has ALL that standard.

*This is the big one and the main driver for the size. The options an organic copter gives the crew is so numouris that not giving it one is an utterly brainless idea.
 
EmoBirb said:
Why wouldn't the USN need a smaller surface combatant that can free up the DDGs for tasks they're genuinely needed for?

The Connies seem infinitely more useful than the LCS tbh
Click to expand...
It does need that, but that only describes the Connies in the most stretched way.

LCSes can do things the Burkes and Ticos can’t. Connie’s don’t bring any capabilities that a burke or Tico doesn’t/can’t so it’s say Connie’s are much less useful than a Connie.

The Constellation class is not a frigate is a slightly smaller burke. We don’t need a class of ships that costs over a billion dollars per hull. We need ships that are well under a billion dollars per hull.

We need ships to escort MSC vessels and merchants. That means we need large numbers. 30 isn’t enough that means we only have 10 available at a time, maybe 15 during dire circumstances.

MMSC would likely be a better option, but the HHI’s patrol frigate likely the best option.
We could likely build 60+ of either without much issue.
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
The Constellation class is not a frigate is a slightly smaller burke. We don’t need a class of ships that costs over a billion dollars per hull. We need ships that are well under a billion dollars per hull.
[...]
Click to expand...
The problem is that an LCS cannot operate more or less by itself in the Red Sea while the Houthis are throwing their temper tantrum. Or if the Iranian Navy or IRGC gets froggy in the Persian Gulf.

An LCS cannot provide AA protection to other ships. Hell, it can barely provide AA protection to itself!

So you need something with 32x+ Mk41 cells plus a radar and FCS able to drive them. Call it 6 cells of VL-ASROCs, probably 6 cells of ESSM for 24x missiles, then the remainder for SM2s and maybe SM6s as the typical load. Shifting to more ESSMs if they're going to be spending more time in a place like the Red Sea.

Bluntly, SPY6 and Aegis is the current "cost of playing the game"
 
Josh_TN said:
I think @johnpjones1775 has a particularly underrated view of PLAN capabilities.

But in any case, I think we can all agree that what matters most is hulls in the water as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
What? Where in the world did you get that? I view all potential conflicts as near our own capabilities until proven otherwise whether it’s Iran, China, or Russia. Always have.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The problem is that an LCS cannot operate more or less by itself in the Red Sea while the Houthis are throwing their temper tantrum. Or if the Iranian Navy or IRGC gets froggy in the Persian Gulf.

An LCS cannot provide AA protection to other ships. Hell, it can barely provide AA protection to itself!

So you need something with 32x+ Mk41 cells plus a radar and FCS able to drive them. Call it 6 cells of VL-ASROCs, probably 6 cells of ESSM for 24x missiles, then the remainder for SM2s and maybe SM6s as the typical load. Shifting to more ESSMs if they're going to be spending more time in a place like the Red Sea.

Bluntly, SPY6 and Aegis is the current "cost of playing the game"
Click to expand...
I never said LCS could. MMSC however could. So could HHI’s patrol frigate.

Hell if LCS ever gets the VLS upgrades for 8 VLS in its topside mission modules, it will be able to.

Bottom line FIII Burke is $2.5b Connie’s are around $1.5-1.7b and have 1/3 the magazine capacity. If we cannot buy in bulk I’d rather have deeper magazines. For every $3b available to build surface ships we can still buy only 1 (maybe 2 if lucky)Connie, or 1 burke. So in that case I’d rather have more missiles in the fleet.

SPY-6 is only the cost of playing the game if you’re too stupid to figure out how to play cheaper. A cheaper option would be AEW fixed wing drone that can provide targeting data to any shooter in a broad area. 1 drone could cover many cheaper ships.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I never said LCS could. MMSC however could. So could HHI’s patrol frigate.

Hell if LCS ever gets the VLS upgrades for 8 VLS in its topside mission modules, it will be able to.
Click to expand...
So it gets up to 32x ESSMs (and I'd actually expect ~4 cells of VL-ASROC with 16x ESSMs). Now it can protect itself, but nothing else.

A frigate needs to be able to protect other ships!


johnpjones1775 said:
Bottom line FIII Burke is $2.5b Connie’s are around $1.5-1.7b and have 1/3 the magazine capacity. If we cannot buy in bulk I’d rather have deeper magazines. For every $3b available to build surface ships we can still buy only 1 (maybe 2 if lucky)Connie, or 1 burke. So in that case I’d rather have more missiles in the fleet.
Click to expand...
Yes, Connies are under-gunned. Under-missiled, rather. The modern threat environment has gone up to the point that an FFG needs 48-64x VLS cells, all packing SAMs, to do the job.


johnpjones1775 said:
SPY-6 is only the cost of playing the game if you’re too stupid to figure out how to play cheaper. A cheaper option would be AEW fixed wing drone that can provide targeting data to any shooter in a broad area. 1 drone could cover many cheaper ships.
Click to expand...
And then you're giving away ELINT data as to what's in any given group of ships... Which is the primary combat reason the USN wants everything on SPY6.

There's also the advantage of only needing one radar and FCS school and only one set of spare parts. Which is a significant economic and logistical advantage.

Also, I suspect that TERN or whatever develops out of TERN will have AEW radars on it.
 
I have a couple of open questions about the FFG(X) Constellation.

VL-ASROC: I distinctly recall one of the original contracting notices stating that the FFG(X) would potentially involve a future notional vertical-launched anti-sub rocket. It did not mention Vertical Launch ASROC specifically, and the wording implied that a new weapon might be developed to replace VLA. However, now that I look back through the original notices, I can't find this anywhere. Am I hallucinating?

The original notices certainly did not mention VLA, not that I can find, but VLA started appearing later in Navy presentations. The original contracting notices only mentioned ESSM and SM-2. Is VLA confirmed now for FFG-62?

The other open question relates to the Surface-to-Surface Mission Module (SSMM) armed with Longbow Hellfire. This was listed in the Government Furnished Equipment section of the original 2017 brief, but I can't find mention of it since then. Has this requirement been removed?

SAM.gov

sam.gov sam.gov

SAM.gov

sam.gov sam.gov
 

Attachments

  • 1749443170006.png
    1749443170006.png
    237.7 KB · Views: 11
  • 1749443211717.png
    1749443211717.png
    197.9 KB · Views: 11
  • FFG(X)_Industry_Day_Brief_25_July_2017_FBO.pdf
    664.5 KB · Views: 6

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom