FFG(X)

[TomS]

What is the Freedom Class LCS doing these days?

The Independence Class has mine warfare.

What is Freedom's focus?

Anti-surface warfare. Same mission as the new FF(X), more or less.

 

[Felocie]

I meant replacing the patrol mission, not MCM or ASW.

Eh, that's basically the role of the Freedoms. Bear in mind the Freedom class has the SLA for upgrades built in, they've begun testing a laser weapons system for it iirc. It's like filling a gap that is already filled and the Freedoms can do it in a more hostile environment

 

[whatismoo]

Eh, that's basically the role of the Freedoms. Bear in mind the Freedom class has the SLA for upgrades built in, they've begun testing a laser weapons system for it iirc. It's like filling a gap that is already filled and the Freedoms can do it in a more hostile environment

My baseline expectation is that this is supposed to be a Freedom replacement with potentially lower operating costs, but I have no idea if that's grounded in reality. Why the USN needs an OPV when the coastguard exists is beyond my understanding

 

[Moose]

The U.S. Navy finally got it — numbers matter, and they can't afford to wait anymore. The new FFG(X) program is clearly all about building ships fast.


The new FFG(X) should be better than the LCS, but only slightly better.

But 16 NSMs? That's still way too many. I don't get it.

There's no G for the new program, it's FF(X). And it's not "clearly" about anything. It is presented as being about building ships fast, with nothing but "trust me, Bro" to back it up. It's presented as moving quickly, yet they awarded it to a shipyard that has a very large backlog. Its presented it as about making shipbuilding broadly more healthy, but the shipyard doing the building is already responsible for half the surface combatant fleet and nearly all the Amphib fleet.

 

[Felocie]

My baseline expectation is that this is supposed to be a Freedom replacement with potentially lower operating costs

The operating costs are an unconvincing argument for replacing Freedom with a ship that has less capability for a higher per unit cost

The new FFG(X) should be better than the LCS, but only slightly better.

what are you talking about??? It has less capability than LCS! It has less SLA! It has literally none of the good things LCS has. Please, for the love of god, don’t comment if you don’t have facts to back up your claims

 

[donnage99]

An NSC will never be built to the same requirements as the Constellations.

It is a smaller ship. At best it will be a light frigate.

The first iteration is more of a blue-water, high-endurance corvette.

It's not just size. As I explained. If they want to do sub hunting, they gonna have to redesign basically a new ship from inside out.

 

[Josh_TN]

8th

At the time the LCS surface warfare was conceived, Iranian boghammer swarms were the major concern.

They expected LCS to be fighting large numbers of Iranian speed boats and RIBs.

I am aware of the requirements; that does not make them reasonable or useful requirements even then, let alone now. I suspect whatever replaces FFGX also gets 57mm, though personally I think trying to salvage the Constellation program is a better option and all efforts to the contrary likely some kind of grift that delivers ships of no value.

 

[Josh_TN]

*Make it ASW capable to the requierments that created the FFG(X).

While ity definitely not bad but it can't compete with any dedicated ASW hunter

There has not been a USN dedicated ASW since Spruance. Zoomies were probably the next closest thing.

 

[Josh_TN]

There's no G for the new program, it's FF(X). And it's not "clearly" about anything. It is presented as being about building ships fast, with nothing but "trust me, Bro" to back it up. It's presented as moving quickly, yet they awarded it to a shipyard that has a very large backlog. Its presented it as about making shipbuilding broadly more healthy, but the shipyard doing the building is already responsible for half the surface combatant fleet and nearly all the Amphib fleet.

Because it’s a grift not a weapons program. That’s what happens you hire experienced businessmen who are the best friends of a businessman president…they do business, not defense.

 

[DWG]

Didn't Phelan say the cost was now 80% of a Burke? Maybe he was speaking out of turn or maybe he has access to information we don't?

The cost per boat just went from cost per hull + overall programme costs/6 to cost per hull + overall programme costs/2. Sudden price rises in this situation are 1) inevitable and 2) meaningless (it's a sunk cost) and 3) potentially politically useful for misleading the ill-informed*

* That's assuming Phelan understands the nuances of 1) and 2) I'm not convinced that's necessarily the case.

 

[donnage99]

It's clear the priority here is political win for Phelan. By the time flight II roll around with all the engineering problems of redesign and navy forcing early retirement of flight I due to its useless nature, Phelan is long gone. Flight I hit the water during his term, he gets to claim to be the "savior of the navy in the greatest presidency ever blah blah blah."

 

[HyFonic]

A deleted Tweet from Fincantieri US in response to SECNAV announcing the Legend Class cutter's selection as FF(X).

 

[Jimmo952]

A deleted Tweet from Fincantieri US in response to SECNAV announcing the Legend Class cutter's selection as FF(X).

View attachment 795867

A little shot at NAVSEA there.

 

[DWG]

The last we heard, the design was severely overweight, top heavy and would not make the speed requirement.

Where's the top-heavy come from? The GAO reported them as 759t overweight in the Weapon Systems Annual Assessment in June (quoting Navy figures from October 24), but with no mention of stability concerns. Compared to FREMM, FFG(X) is longer (27.5ft pp), beamier (3.5ft wl) and has a generally lower superstructure, while being 500t greater displacement by design; 759t extra is going to make them sit lower in the water and increase wetted area, with potential impact on speed, but whether it affects stability depends on precisely where the weight growth is within the ship.

 

[HyFonic]

A little shot at NAVSEA there.

Across the bow? Or is that too on the nose?

 

[DWG]

Eh, that's basically the role of the Freedoms. Bear in mind the Freedom class has the SLA for upgrades built in, they've begun testing a laser weapons system for it iirc. It's like filling a gap that is already filled and the Freedoms can do it in a more hostile environment

SLA = Service Life Allowance = margin?

 

[Jimmo952]

Where's the top-heavy come from? The GAO reported them as 759t overweight in the Weapon Systems Annual Assessment in June (quoting Navy figures from October 24), but with no mention of stability concerns. Compared to FREMM, FFG(X) is longer (27.5ft pp), beamier (3.5ft wl) and has a generally lower superstructure, while being 500t greater displacement by design; 759t extra is going to make them sit lower in the water and increase wetted area, with potential impact on speed, but whether it affects stability depends on precisely where the weight growth is within the ship.

I read it on a well-known naval blog.

Maybe it's true. Maybe not.

This is the first time that specific radar is being used, so maybe there are some wrinkles there.

 

[TwoTribes]

what are you talking about??? It has less capability than LCS! It has less SLA! It has literally none of the good things LCS has. Please, for the love of god, don’t comment if you don’t have facts to back up your claims

Great. I am Chinese.

That being said, perhaps the service life of the FF(X) could surpass that of the LCS, which might be an advantage. This is important. The boys on the LCS get a place to go, and they can keep asking Congress for money to maintain a frigate fleet for a long time (longer than the LCS).

It can also perform more missions than the LCS, given that the average service life of the LCS is only 10 years, which could somewhat alleviate the workload of the Burke-class destroyers (though I don't know the exact %). If the FF(X) can achieve an average service life longer than that of the LCS, that would be a win. And for now, it seems feasible.

 

[Felocie]

Great. I am Chinese.

Ok and?

That being said, perhaps the service life of the FF(X) could surpass that of the LCS, which might be an advantage. This is important. The boys on the LCS get a place to go, and they can keep asking Congress for money to maintain a frigate fleet for a long time (longer than the LCS).

They will have about the same service life and LCS will need a dedicated replacement anyway given that NSC can’t do MCM.

can also perform more missions than the LCS

It can’t? It can only do patrol frigate duties. LCS can do patrol, MCM, and proper surface warfare.

that the average service life of the LCS is only 10 years

“Source: I made it up”

If the FF(X) can achieve an average service life longer than that of the LCS, that would be a win. And for now, it seems feasible.

It wouldn’t be a win at the cost of capability.

Those who do not know, should not speak be that Americans, Chinese, or otherwise

 

[Felocie]

A deleted Tweet from Fincantieri US in response to SECNAV announcing the Legend Class cutter's selection as FF(X).

View attachment 795867

Really quite ridiculous, absolutely shameful that this is how defence is being run in 2025.

SLA = Service Life Allowance = margin?

yes, same problem OHP had funnily enough

 

[Scott Kenny]

The operating costs are an unconvincing argument for replacing Freedom with a ship that has less capability for a higher per unit cost

Not needing the 40+knot top speed and that maintenance-heavy combining gear would make life a lot cheaper.

There has not been a USN dedicated ASW since Spruance. Zoomies were probably the next closest thing.

Correct, the Zs were supposed to be the high-capability ASW ship replacing the Sprucans.

 

[TwoTribes]

They will have about the same service life and LCS will need a dedicated replacement anyway given that NSC can’t do MCM.

Their operational costs differ.

The propulsion system of the LCS is more complex than that of the NSC. Maintaining an LCS fleet is more expensive than maintaining a frigate fleet based on the NSC.

Additionally, would building a new mine-countermeasures fleet cost even more than maintaining the existing LCS fleet with mine-countermeasures capabilities? A dedicated mine-countermeasures vessel doesn't require a speed of over 40 knots, waterjets, LM2500 and MT30 engines, SUW modules, or even RAM systems.

I don't believe the performance advantages of the LCS over the FF(X) are significant enough for the U.S. Navy to overlook its higher maintenance costs. Cost will make the U.S. Navy more than happy to replace the LCS with the FF(X).

It can’t? It can only do patrol frigate duties. LCS can do patrol, MCM, and proper surface warfare.

"Proper surface warfare", what armament should be used? NSM? Does the FF(X) not have it? The 30mm gun and Hellfire missiles aren't really "proper." It wouldn't be difficult for the FF(X) to match the capabilities of the LCS SUW module.

“Source: I made it up”

The seven retired LCSs had an average service life of less than 10 years—no need for me to list them all out, right? The average service life of all LCS vessels may exceed 10 years. It's not that the LCS is so great, but rather that its replacements aren't fast enough for sufficient numbers.

It wouldn’t be a win at the cost of capability.

Then the Constellation-class should continue to move forward.

 

[EmoBirb]

A deleted Tweet from Fincantieri US in response to SECNAV announcing the Legend Class cutter's selection as FF(X).

View attachment 795867

I love me some NAVSEA slander in the morning

 

[TwoTribes]

For naval development, today is not 2025—today is 2035, it is 2045. Building a fleet takes a very long time, and any delay now means a shrinking fleet size of the future. Once it shrinks past a certain point, expanding it again becomes difficult.

Personally, I believe that since the U.S. Navy has chosen the FF(X), it should push forward steadily without fantasizing about some more perfect "Constellation." In my view, the only discussion worth having is what configurations a major variant of the FF(X) might feature. (But, the NSC's tonnage isn't that large, and its remaining potential isn't exactly ideal. It's disappointing, really.)

As for the baseline FF(X), further debate is unnecessary because it must move forward—the U.S. Navy needs to act. When the first batch of FF(X) is completed, Congress, design departments, industry, and the U.S. Navy itself will receive a tremendous boost. And this momentum will be invaluable for future programs like DDG(X).

If the baseline configuration of the FF(X) is as we've recently seen, and with towed sonar and fixed sonar arrays (the towed sonar can be placed on the stern platform, while anti-ship missiles are reduced to eight), that configuration would already be pretty solid.

 

[donnage99]

If the baseline configuration of the FF(X) is as we've recently seen, and with towed sonar and fixed sonar arrays (the towed sonar can be placed on the stern platform, while anti-ship missiles are reduced to eight), that configuration would already be pretty solid.

For love of God, the ship is too noisy for sub hunting missions. Everything in this ship vibrates. The whole ship need redesign to do sub hunting. Sub hunting isn't just simply attaching towed sonars to any ship.

 

[Felocie]

A dedicated mine-countermeasures vessel doesn't require a speed of over 40 knots, waterjets, LM2500 and MT30 engines, SUW modules, or even RAM systems.

These fill the SURFACE WARFARE element of their CONOPS. God almighty, that's half the point of them. And 40 knot speeds are a significant help as has been asserted by the USN and USCG for surface warfare missions. RAM is also needed as standard now because MCM happens in contested environments

I don't believe the performance advantages of the LCS over the FF(X) are significant enough for the U.S. Navy to overlook its higher maintenance costs. Cost will make the U.S. Navy more than happy to replace the LCS with the FF(X).

You do realize that maintaining the fleet is a cost that is accounted for? FF(X) is being bought on top of LCS not supplanting them so it is a net increase in cost for the Navy to foot. Arguably they are saving money only because they cost less to maintain than Constellation.

"Proper surface warfare", what armament should be used? NSM? Does the FF(X) not have it? The 30mm gun and Hellfire missiles aren't really "proper." It wouldn't be difficult for the FF(X) to match the capabilities of the LCS SUW module.

Surface warfare is maneuverability, responding to incoming threats (RAM and DEWs), and returning fire via missiles and gunfire. All elements that are fulfilled better by Freedom. Additionally Independence class LCS can simultaneously engage in MCM.

The seven retired LCSs had an average service life of less than 10 years—no need for me to list them all out, right? The average service life of all LCS vessels may exceed 10 years. It's not that the LCS is so great, but rather that its replacements aren't fast enough for sufficient numbers.

lmao, that is not how you calculate service life but ok. A google search would show you that those hulls were cut because the Navy believed they could sufficiently fill roles without them. LCS numbers fill the MCM and PF roles as is, they do not need FF(X)

Then the Constellation-class should continue to move forward.

Duh? This is arguably the most obvious statement anyone has ever said

If the baseline configuration of the FF(X) is as we've recently seen, and with towed sonar and fixed sonar arrays (the towed sonar can be placed on the stern platform, while anti-ship missiles are reduced to eight), that configuration would already be pretty solid.

YOU CAN'T JUST DO THIS, HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE REITERATED TO YOU

 

[TwoTribes]

For love of God, the ship is too noisy for sub hunting missions. Everything in this ship vibrates. The whole ship need redesign to do sub hunting. Sub hunting isn't just simply attaching towed sonars to any ship.

Is there any news coverage on this? It should at least be quieter than the LCS's waterjet, right?

 

[Felocie]

Is there any news coverage on this? It should at least be quieter than the LCS's waterjet, right?

Oh my god, the LCS doesn't do ASW anymore, it is one of many failures in the LCS program. The NSC also does not do ASW, although a roll on TA was considered but cancelled. Constellation is a design based primarily around being quiet and supporting a TA and VDS for ASW. NSC is primarily designed to do law enforcement around the globe.

Also theoretically LCS could accomplish ASW by utilizing a sprint and drift ASW tactic but this is much harder (read impossible) for a non waterjet/high speed design

 

[Firefinder]

The seven retired LCSs had an average service life of less than 10 years—no need for me to list them all out, right? The average service life of all LCS vessels may exceed 10 years. It's not that the LCS is so great, but rather that its replacements aren't fast enough for sufficient numbers

You mean the last 3?

Those being the Freedoms who gearing was so fucked that it was cheaper to retire over repairing them?

The first 4 was the class prototypes design for a shorter life for cheapness from when the Navy wanted to only buy one class. Those were built with the understanding that they had less then 15 years in service.

 

[kqcke for you]

What i could see is in the future maybe the FF(X) having the An/Spy-6v2 and then using its small vls + LCS as supplements when greater air defense is needed

 

[donnage99]

Is there any news coverage on this? It should at least be quieter than the LCS's waterjet, right?

It's not just engines, but pumps, generators, all sort of rotating machinary. Techniques such as rafting, Prairie-Masker, and other noise reducing/absorbing mounts for noisy parts, etc to reduce the transmission of noise. These are costly, add weight and space. There's no requirements for coast guards to have these features on the NSC to begin with. To do sub hunting, major internal redesign need to be done.

 

[kqcke for you]

It's not just engines, but pumps, generators, all sort of rotating machinary. Techniques such as rafting, Prairie-Masker, and other noise reducing/absorbing mounts for noisy parts, etc to reduce the transmission of noise. These are costly, add weight and space. There's no requirements for coast guards to have these features on the NSC to begin with. To do sub hunting, major internal redesign need to be done.

Maybe they should have.....
Modern cartels do get creative

 

[TwoTribes]

These fill the SURFACE WARFARE element of their CONOPS. God almighty, that's half the point of them. And 40 knot speeds are a significant help as has been asserted by the USN and USCG for surface warfare missions.

In a large-scale conflict with the Chinese Navy, a speed exceeding 40 knots is an unnecessary capability.

RAM is also needed as standard now because MCM happens in contested environments.

"Contested environments", in this kind of "contested environment," what exactly defines "contested"?

Even ammunition from the Houthis has penetrated within one nautical mile of a Burke-class destroyer. Ships equipped only with RAM systems are simply not suited for operations in high-risk zones—they're better off in areas with lower threats. But in lower-threat areas, what's the difference between an LCS with RAM and a dedicated minesweeper without RAM?

You do realize that maintaining the fleet is a cost that is accounted for? FF(X) is being bought on top of LCS not supplanting them so it is a net increase in cost for the Navy to foot. Arguably they are saving money only because they cost less to maintain than Constellation.

Since you don't consider the FF(X) a replacement for the LCS, do you think there will be any follow-on classes to the Freedom class and Independence class? I don't think there will be. Even if there are, the numbers won't be large.

Surface warfare is maneuverability, responding to incoming threats (RAM and DEWs), and returning fire via missiles and gunfire. All elements that are fulfilled better by Freedom. Additionally Independence class LCS can simultaneously engage in MCM.

Maneuverability — yes, that's right, the LCS is faster.

Defense — the LCS doesn't perform significantly better than the FF(X); both the LCS and FF(X) are equipped with RAM and only RAM. While the more powerful LCS could theoretically mount higher-power DEWs, DEWs are not yet widely deployed on the LCS, and the actual effectiveness of current DEW systems remains questionable.

Attack — the LCS doesn't perform significantly better than the FF(X); both carry the same 57mm gun. The LCS has enhanced anti-small boat capability, but scenarios where this can be effectively employed are limited. The FF(X) carries more NSM missiles than the LCS.

lmao, that is not how you calculate service life but ok. A google search would show you that those hulls were cut because the Navy believed they could sufficiently fill roles without them. LCS numbers fill the MCM and PF roles as is, they do not need FF(X)

The Burke-class can also fill the PF mission... Fill it, yes—but fit for it? Neither the Burke-class nor the LCS is well-suited for the PF mission.

Duh? This is arguably the most obvious statement anyone has ever said

I also agree that the Constellation-class program should continue.

YOU CAN'T JUST DO THIS, HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE REITERATED TO YOU

Is there any article or evidence to support the claim that the NSC is too noisy to conduct anti-submarine warfare missions?

 

[Felocie]

In a large-scale conflict with the Chinese Navy, a speed exceeding 40 knots is an unnecessary capability.

Neither LCS nor FF(X) are designed for direct engagement with the Chinese navy so why does that matter? Also exceeding 40 knots provides greater tactical mobility which makes it harder for the Chinese navy to kill, as well as the LCS having a lower RCS iirc.

"Contested environments", in this kind of "contested environment," what exactly defines "contested"?

That which is similar to the Middle East

Even ammunition from the Houthis has penetrated within one nautical mile of a Burke-class destroyer. Ships equipped only with RAM systems are simply not suited for operations in high-risk zones—they're better off in areas with lower threats. But in lower-threat areas, what's the difference between an LCS with RAM and a dedicated minesweeper without RAM?

The purpose of RAM is to kill that which has penetrated other layers of air defense. RAM is indeed suited for operations in high risk zones because those operations will take place within the AD envelope of DDGs. Also the munitions to which you refer could've got that close for any reason, it means very little in the grand scheme of things.

do you think there will be any follow-on classes to the Freedom class and Independence class?

Yes, but they will likely take a different form. For one the Freedom class will focus more on large bays to support UxVs as they are the future of MCM. The Freedom class replacement is harder to predict due to the rapidly shifting nature of systems atm. They will both come online in about 20 years iirc.

DEWs are not yet widely deployed on the LCS

There is literally a program to deploy them

and the actual effectiveness of current DEW systems remains questionable.

This is not at all true. As a matter of fact the USN is betting big on DEWs and they are already combat proven for taking down loitering munitions and the like.

Maneuverability — yes, that's right, the LCS is faster.

Defense — the LCS doesn't perform significantly better than the FF(X); both the LCS and FF(X) are equipped with RAM and only RAM. While the more powerful LCS could theoretically mount higher-power DEWs, DEWs are not yet widely deployed on the LCS, and the actual effectiveness of current DEW systems remains questionable.

Attack — the LCS doesn't perform significantly better than the FF(X); both carry the same 57mm gun. The LCS has enhanced anti-small boat capability, but scenarios where this can be effectively employed are limited. The FF(X) carries more NSM missiles than the LCS.

This is an inherently bad argument because you separate factors which are intrinsic to each other. Maneuverability allows the LCS to engage small boats aggressively and to maneuver away from the engagement envelope of threats. They all work together in a way that an NSC derived PF cannot. It's like comparing an F-15 to a P-8, they both kill things but do it in different ways and one is far better at engaging in the surface warfare required of the PF.

The Burke-class can also fill the PF mission... Fill it, yes—but fit for it? Neither the Burke-class nor the LCS is well-suited for the PF mission.

Why is the Freedom class LCS bad for the PF mission? The only way the NSC wins out is in endurance but that is such a minor concern when compared to other ships such as the Burke itself. Sensors, guns, etc. are all superior on the Freedom class.

Is there any article or evidence to support the claim that the NSC is too noisy to conduct anti-submarine warfare missions?

Literally common sense. NSC is a CODAG design with no serious concern for quieting because it does law enforcement missions. It has no provisions for a TA or VDS. It is probably about as quiet as a Burke which is to say too noisy to be a dedicated ASW platform. It also has no space to support UxVs which are the next major frontier in shipboard ASW. Ok, I guess you could argue it can "do" ASW but the capability is so negligible over a Burke that it is essentially useless.

 

[DWG]

Those who do not know, should not speak

How else do people learn but by asking questions?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I love me some NAVSEA slander in the morning

It's not slander if it's true.

 

[Anduriel]

Thanks, in that case we are all doomed...

Does SPY-6 that much necessary? 054B lives just fine w/o Type 346A from 052D.
You can launch ESSM just fine w/o it, and 50km range of ESSM is pretty good for a frigate. 16 Mk-41 for it would be more than enough.
I'd say the main issue is complete lack of ASW, which would require bigger hangar, redesign of a hull for bow sonar and for towed/VDS.

 

[cccgong]

For naval development, today is not 2025—today is 2035, it is 2045. Building a fleet takes a very long time, and any delay now means a shrinking fleet size of the future. Once it shrinks past a certain point, expanding it again becomes difficult.

Personally, I believe that since the U.S. Navy has chosen the FF(X), it should push forward steadily without fantasizing about some more perfect "Constellation." In my view, the only discussion worth having is what configurations a major variant of the FF(X) might feature. (But, the NSC's tonnage isn't that large, and its remaining potential isn't exactly ideal. It's disappointing, really.)

As for the baseline FF(X), further debate is unnecessary because it must move forward—the U.S. Navy needs to act. When the first batch of FF(X) is completed, Congress, design departments, industry, and the U.S. Navy itself will receive a tremendous boost. And this momentum will be invaluable for future programs like DDG(X).

If the baseline configuration of the FF(X) is as we've recently seen, and with towed sonar and fixed sonar arrays (the towed sonar can be placed on the stern platform, while anti-ship missiles are reduced to eight), that configuration would already be pretty solid.

It's much worse to have a useless ship (incapable of ASW or AAW even with a modified NSC) than no ship. As it takes away procurement, operational, and maintenance money away from actually useful programs, will lead to deaths that could be otherwise avoided when these are put into the wrong place, and reduces political will from Congress as they will say we just bought you ships. You don't need more.

It's too loud for ASW.

What i could see is in the future maybe the FF(X) having the An/Spy-6v2 and then using its small vls + LCS as supplements when greater air defense is needed

This would require a complete redesign of the ship's superstructure and consquently a redesign of most of the ship. It has no place to mount fixed panels that have a clear line of sight of the surroundings.

Does SPY-6 that much necessary? 054B lives just fine w/o Type 346A from 052D.
You can launch ESSM just fine w/o it, and 50km range of ESSM is pretty good for a frigate. 16 Mk-41 for it would be more than enough.
I'd say the main issue is complete lack of ASW, which would require bigger hangar, redesign of a hull for bow sonar and for towed/VDS.

Yes, the USN will face a larger missile threat from the Chinese than the other way around. A crappy radar also means you can't use these ships are radar pickets to detect and hand off engagement of super/hypersonic missiles further away from the main fleet. As due to the speed of those, early detection is a must.

As mentioned 10s of times now, you can't do ASW with the NSC as it's too loud would require a complete redesign....

 

[kqcke for you]

This would require a complete redesign of the ship's superstructure and consquently a redesign of most of the ship. It has no place to mount fixed panels that have a clear line of sight of the surroundings.

An-Spy-6v2 is the rotating single radar panel. While a redesign is likely needed for this larger heavier radar it still would be mutch easier and 6v3 which has 3 of those.

 

[cccgong]

An-Spy-6v2 is the rotating single radar panel. While a redesign is likely needed for this larger heavier radar it still would be mutch easier and 6v3 which has 3 of those.
View attachment 795909

Sorry I misread that as SPY6v3. The v2 won't be sufficient for something that needs to operate alone due to latency issues with detecting fast moving targets and also much low detection ranges. You wouldn't be able to act as eyes for a long range engagement. There is a reason all new build FFG and similar in decent navies use fixed arrays

The v2 is only really used as aircraft control radars for amphibs and CVs not as something for engagements.