US FF(X) Program - DISCUSSION

[cccgong]

I expect we'll get six to eight Flt I before a Flt II comes along so enough runway to design things properly and ideally the Flt II Management Team starts the same day as the Flt I guys. I doubt there will be the same shenanigans as there was with Constellation given the higher level visibility and claimed accountability.

0 flight 1's should be built. It should just be a clean sheet design. You'll end up with a better ship more quickly than trying to modify the existing hull and all of its constraints.

 

[Ozair]

0 flight 1's should be built.

In the reality I live in that isn't an option.

It should just be a clean sheet design. You'll end up with a better ship more quickly than trying to modify the existing hull and all of its constraints.

I don't think a clean sheet design will arrive quicker than initial FF(X) deliveries. Would a clean sheet be more functional and suitable for the USN than a NSC, undoubtedly, but right now the USN no longer has the street cred to manage that process by themselves.

 

[cccgong]

In the reality I live in that isn't an option.

I don't think a clean sheet design will arrive quicker than initial FF(X) deliveries. Would a clean sheet be more functional and suitable for the USN than a NSC, undoubtedly, but right now the USN no longer has the street cred to manage that process by themselves.

Why do you want to build flight 1's. They are literally NSC cutters which cost 1.03 billion inflation adjusted (vs Constellation class at 1.2 billion) and can't do ASW, operate alone, or AAW for convoys. Even if they were 250 million, you'd still have to pay comparable operational costs to a constellation class. On top of that Congress will then say you have 8 FF(X), you can have 8 fewer of whatever follow on frigate you want.

 

[Ozair]

Why do you want to build flight 1's. They are literally NSC cutters which cost 1.03 billion inflation adjusted (vs Constellation class at 1.2 billion) and can't do ASW, operate alone, or AAW for convoys. Even if they were 250 million, you'd still have to pay comparable operational costs to a constellation class. On top of that Congress will then say you have 8 FF(X), you can have 8 fewer of whatever follow on frigate you want.

Because it is less about the ships and more about the yards, skills and industry. Building Flt Is now allows the process to start and while the hulls might not be very valuable in the long run establishing production across multiple yards will send Industry the signal it needs to invest and hire. Then four years from now when the Flt II design is finished and ready to go it can be built in earnest.

 

[cccgong]

Because it is less about the ships and more about the yards, skills and industry. Building Flt Is now allows the process to start and while the hulls might not be very valuable in the long run establishing production across multiple yards will send Industry the signal it needs to invest and hire. Then four years from now when the Flt II design is finished and ready to go it can be built in earnest.

Then we should build the MMSC. They are Freedom class with 8 VLS, 8 ASM, VDS, and different propulsion setup which maybe quieter for the Saudis that is currently being built at 650 million a ship. With the first one launched last week. And they are built at FFM which is a less used yard.

 

[Ozair]

Then we should build the MMSC. They are Freedom class with 8 VLS, 8 ASM, VDS, and different propulsion setup which maybe quieter for the Saudis that is currently being built at 650 million a ship. With the first one launched last week. And they are built at FFM which is a less used yard.

I agree that would be a better option but again with the reality we live in that isn't going to happen.

Now the USN just needs Rapid Capabilities to succeed and deliver some unmanned platforms that can supplement the new fleet.

 

[Big_Zukini]

It should have Mk70 VLS, which is 4 Mk41 cells in an ISO container. At least as long as they're talking about giving it the same armaments as an LCS.
Ironically, the LCS did have the build for expansion, capable of deploying drones and having a large deck for something like the Mk70.

The new frigate, forgot its name, will at least have to be able to deploy or support drones nearby that can carry what it cannot.

Otherwise it's an OPV.

 

[DWG]

Isn't it also supposed to be pulling a VDS and normal towed array? Plus helo and the usual Mk32 LWT launchers?

No sign of a tail or VDS or Mk32 in the renderings or the list of systems. All the space aft is used for the NSMs and Mk70. It does at least have a helo.

 

[Ainen]

Then we should build the MMSC. They are Freedom class with 8 VLS, 8 ASM, VDS, and different propulsion setup which maybe quieter for the Saudis that is currently being built at 650 million a ship. With the first one launched last week. And they are built at FFM which is a less used yard.

You can have something similar to Saudi ship from vanilla freedoms, Lockheed made giraffe horn launchers to achieve that specifically.

The problem is that LCS is fast combat ship (underarmed or not), not an escort. Itta parallel existence, which doesn't really appear to appreciate long deployments to sea.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It'll be useless for ASW even if it has a VDS/towed array. As there were such vibrational issues with the early NCS hulls that they needed to be modified as to not effect the fatigue life of the hull.

This was fixed, correct?

So use the updated NSC design with non-absurd vibrations for FFX Flight 1.

To make it useful would require a total redesign at which point, there is no reason to use the NCS hull. Plus the likely desirement to raise the surviability rating from 1 (FREMM was 2).

We already had the discussion about the schedule effects of changing Survivability ratings with FFGX. Which materially contributed to the schedule slips.

So suck it up for the first flight just so we can actually get a damn hull in the water! Once a more reasonable design is ready to hit the water, the USCG can buy the first flight from the Navy.

 

[cccgong]

This was fixed, correct?

So use the updated NSC design with non-absurd vibrations for FFX Flight 1.




We already had the discussion about the schedule effects of changing Survivability ratings with FFGX. Which materially contributed to the schedule slips.

So suck it up for the first flight just so we can actually get a damn hull in the water! Once a more reasonable design is ready to hit the water, the USCG can buy the first flight from the Navy.

There’s a very large difference between won’t shake itself apart and quiet enough for ASW. There’s is no chance they went ahead and quieted it for ASW as that would require entirely different design mitigations.

 

[Maskoki]

Ozair’s correct. ‘We the people’ have to throw dollars at ships the US Navy doesn’t need just to have the ability to build something else later.

If we were smart (if…), we would build the minimum number of Flight I FFs to keep the necessary yards open, concurrently design a fresh 8,000-ton FFG (not based on the FREMM) and design a fresh 6,000-ton ASW KKG (not based on the National Security Cutter), and hand the FFs over to the USCG once the yards are ready to begin building the FFG & KKG.

No nation of empire in history has built a navy the size of China’s devoid of a plan to use it. War in the Pacific, Indian, & Arctic Oceans is coming, and we’re going to need scores of ASW-heavy warships with full SQQ-89 suites to handle the submarines China will mass-produce.

It is long past time the USN act like the navy of the world’s largest economy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ozair’s correct. ‘We the people’ have to throw dollars at ships the US Navy doesn’t need just to have the ability to build something else later.

If we were smart (if…), we would build the minimum number of Flight I FFs to keep the necessary yards open, concurrently design a fresh 8,000-ton FFG (not based on the FREMM) and design a fresh 6,000-ton ASW KKG (not based on the National Security Cutter), and hand the FFs over to the USCG once the yards are ready to begin building the FFG & KKG.

No nation of empire in history has built a navy the size of China’s devoid of a plan to use it. War in the Pacific, Indian, & Arctic Oceans is coming, and we’re going to need scores of ASW-heavy warships with full SQQ-89 suites to handle the submarines China will mass-produce.

It is long past time the USN act like the navy of the world’s largest economy.

KKG?

 

[warspite]

It will need more than just a 57mm gun and the 20mm CIWS.

Agreed ... am not seeing a whole lotta lethality .......

 

[Reddington777]

0 flight 1's should be built. It should just be a clean sheet design. You'll end up with a better ship more quickly than trying to modify the existing hull and all of its constraints.

It could be a good chance to help expand the industrial base and train more workers. Start with something simple, easily constructed, then use these additional flights to build knowhow.

On one hand, I get that you have to field quickly and you need something useful, but if the construction speed remains where it us now, theres no way any ship be it a BBG, DDG or FFG can compete meaningfully. Far greater is the industrial base problem rather than the capabilities problem.

 

[cccgong]

‘My’ ASW corvette concept has an SPS-80 (TRS-4D), would have some kind of ESM threat detection & ECM (not sure if there is truly a ‘lite’ version of the SLQ-32), calls for an 8-cell Mk.41 VLS, and a SeaRAM launcher. Just not the volume of munitions the FFG mounts, because the corvette is escorting east of Guam - so the volume of inbound missiles likely isn’t overwhelming. I call the ASW Corvette single mission (…ASW) because it’s AAW & ASuW weapons (and sensors) aren’t the top-end systems found on multi-mission ships, saving SWP-C & cost.

IMO SPY6v3 is the minimum viable radar system going forward. As if there's any chance of see sea skimming or high supersonic missiles, the latency in a rotating array is too large.

 

[Ainen]

You need vls and radars otherwise any aircraft or other surface combatant will sink the ship. Or even if a sub launches some ASM at the ship. This means it needs an escort. So you’re just better off building a multi mission ship

FFX isn't meant to meet either.
It's big profile threat is submarine, and realistically it isn't meant to win, rather just to deter.
It's impossible to reliably win again full modern submarine (ssn, ssk) at this price point (and frankly at any), it just is not the way it works. Deterrence, on the other hand, is quite achievable.

IMO SPY6v3 is the minimum viable radar system going forward. As if there's any chance of see sea skimming or high supersonic missiles, the latency in a rotating array is too large.

Couple of seconds for ~1/2 the price all things equal. Furthermore, that 360 will be more uniform(120 deg sector is firmly in suboptimal area for AESA performance).
But most likely things aren't equal, and rotating array will be positioned higher up.

TRS/Searam blk.2/mk.110 is treated as nothing - but it's effectively type 26 level AA. Yes, half the ammo upfront, but can be reloaded.
Yes, cells are desirable in principle, and add whole more deterrence/threat profile to the ship. But speaking practically, I'd rather ask for VDS, RWR(updated for drone threat) and ODIN first.

 

[cccgong]

FFX isn't meant to meet either.
It's big profile threat is submarine, and realistically it isn't meant to win, rather just to deter.
It's impossible to

Couple of seconds for ~1/2 the price all things equal. Furthermore, that 360 will be more uniform(120 deg sector is firmly in suboptimal area for AESA performance).
But most likely things aren't equal, and rotating array will be positioned higher up.

TRS/Searam blk.2/mk.110 is treated as nothing - but it's effectively type 26 level AA. Less ammo upfront, but reloadable.

Even with tradition sea skimming subsonics you have ~30s from detection before impact. With a the TRS-4D you're rotating at ~14 rpm, so you're losing 4 seconds and potentially 8 if you need 2 rotations to confirm target identification. Chinese subs have sea skimming missiles and would be able to likely engage and sink these escorts.

If it's escorting only to the east of Guam, subs and sub launched sea-skimming missiles are likely your primary threat. So you don't need long range performance to detect targets at range as you're limited by the radar horizon. So you can easily accept reduced sensitivity at certain angles.

West of Guam enemy air and surface fleet threats will rise. So this means you'll still need escorts to the west of Guam, and it's wasteful to use Burkes to do so, and you'll still want this ship along for ASW as Burkes aren't the best ASW platform due to their noise.

Searam and MK110 have ~10km range where as CAMM-ER on the type 26 has 50km range and it can load SM. That's a huge difference. The type 31 also has CAMM-ER. ESSM/CAMM-ER is questionably sufficient at convoy defense too due to the radar horizon and spacing of escorts/convoy ships. Let alone Searam and MK110. Though having two of these ships with the convoy should help with the radar horizon and engagement geometry.

So I think having 2 FFG(X) style ships in a convoy with SPY6v4 should be able to get the ships to the western Phillipines or Japan.

 

[Sintra]

Even with tradition sea skimming subsonics you have ~30s from detection before impact. With a the TRS-4D you're rotating at ~14 rpm, so you're losing 4 seconds and potentially 8 if you need 2 rotations to confirm target identification. Chinese subs have sea skimming missiles and would be able to likely engage and sink these escorts.

If it's escorting only to the east of Guam, subs and sub launched sea-skimming missiles are likely your primary threat. So you don't need long range performance to detect targets at range as you're limited by the radar horizon. So you can easily accept reduced sensitivity at certain angles.

West of Guam enemy air and surface fleet threats will rise. So this means you'll still need escorts to the west of Guam, and it's wasteful to use Burkes to do so, and you'll still want this ship along for ASW as Burkes aren't the best ASW platform due to their noise.

Searam and MK110 have ~10km range where as CAMM-ER on the type 26 has 50km range and it can load SM. That's a huge difference. The type 31 also has CAMM-ER. ESSM/CAMM-ER is questionably sufficient at convoy defense too due to the radar horizon and spacing of escorts/convoy ships. Let alone Searam and MK110. Though having two of these ships with the convoy should help with the radar horizon and engagement geometry.

So I think having 2 FFG(X) style ships in a convoy with SPY6v4 should be able to get the ships to the western Phillipines or Japan.

Till the moment no one who has ordered T26 or T31 plans to use CAMM-ER.

 

[Ainen]

Even with tradition sea skimming subsonics you have ~30s from detection before impact. With a the TRS-4D you're rotating at ~14 rpm, so you're losing 4 seconds and potentially 8 if you need 2 rotations to confirm target identification. Chinese subs have sea skimming missiles and would be able to likely engage and sink these escorts.

If it's escorting only to the east of Guam, subs and sub launched sea-skimming missiles are likely your primary threat. So you don't need long range performance to detect targets at range as you're limited by the radar horizon. So you can easily accept reduced sensitivity at certain angles.

Remember that horizon for single rotating array is likely higher (significantly) in the first place, and this is a modern AESA after all. Confirmation will be done immediately, there's no need to wait for second pass. Radar scans same +-60 sector during rotation.

I don't see escorts meeting chinese surface units or normal airpower, unless it's some case of Leyte, when their job is honestly to die for someone's else mistakes.
Normal Chinese long range threat is YJ-83 or YJ-18 from 21" TTs, of which they have 6. Of 6, 2 will be realistically be loaded with heavy decoys 100% of time, and likely at least one with torpedo just in case.
And vise versa, knowing that Constellation is main escort, it won't probably take too much brainpower to try to arrange missile pattern from 60/180/300 deg relative to convoy direction of advance... I.e. things are relative, and (especially when there's no money for 4 arrays) Europeans didn't choose high rotating arrays out of sloopiness.

Searam and MK110 have ~10km range where as CAMM-ER on the type 26 has 50km range and it can load SM. That's a huge difference. The type 31 also has CAMM-ER. ESSM/CAMM-ER is questionably sufficient at convoy defense too due to the radar horizon and spacing of escorts/convoy ships. Let alone Searam and MK110. Though having two of these ships with the convoy should help with the radar horizon and engagement geometry.

CAMM-ER isn't UK weapon(only CAMM), and SeaRam blk.2 is ~20 km class. Both are same thing - ~sub-100kg weapon(SRAAM adoptation) with all the possible trajectory optimizations. 10km is Chinese HHQ-10, which is substantially smaller(even if it looks similar).
SeaRAM succesfully outcompeted CAMM in Canada, after all.

People often don't really appreciate how big US "small" weapons actually are. ESSM mk.2 is not that far from some of the better systems which major navies use for their area defense (Barak-8 for example)

 

[Sintra]

Isn't it also supposed to be pulling a VDS and normal towed array? Plus helo and the usual Mk32 LWT launchers?

No.

"things that are more intrusive to install, like anti-submarine warfare equipment, would be something we would look to do in the future.”

https://news.usni.org/2025/12/19/se...urity-cutter-first-ffx-to-be-built-at-ingalls

 

[Ainen]

You do remember that the primary threat to a surface ship is not torpedoes, right?

The primary threat to a skimmer from a submarine is sea-skimming missiles.

Yes, and east of IDL/west of Malacca/Trincomalee it's realistically 2-3 YJ-83K or YJ-18 at once per boat for many years to come.
039/093b is not Akula - less tubes, torpedo room 2-3 times smaller.
While YJ-83K is now dual mode, YJ-18(the more normal 21" weapon) is firmly ARH only, with late and very low SRF stage separation event. Which is also two additional points to SeaRAM, and ironically against anything larger with longer launch cycle and larger dead zone.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes, and east of IDL/west of Malacca/Trincomalee it's realistically 2-3 YJ-83K or YJ-18 at once per boat for many years to come.
039/093b is not Akula - less tubes, torpedo room 2-3 times smaller.
While YJ-83K is now dual mode, YJ-18(the more normal 21" weapon) is firmly ARH only, with late and very low SRF stage separation event. Which is also two additional points to SeaRAM, and ironically against anything larger with longer launch cycle and larger dead zone.

So, you think the Navy will be okay with 8x ESSM and 6x VL-ASROC?

 

[Ainen]

So, you think the Navy will be okay with 8x ESSM and 6x VL-ASROC?

I honestly think that yes, at least 70% of the world can be covered with 21 SeaRAM blk.2.
Main problem there isn't lack of even ESSM, it's lack of any asw sensor and ODIN.

When ESSM will be added(honestly for aesthetic rerasons i like ADLs more than containers), FF will be rounded enough to turn 70% to 90.
And all the possible USN money can be then concentrated on these 10%.

 

[DWG]

SeaRAM succesfully outcompeted CAMM in Canada, after all.

I've seen at least one report that the issue wasn't performance, but that NAVSEA refused to integrate CAMM into Aegis.

 

[Ainen]

I've seen at least one report that the issue wasn't performance, but that NAVSEA refused to integrate CAMM into Aegis.

It's most probably this way, but ultimately they're roughly comparable. I'd assume even US side can't refuse without any argument at all...

 

[cccgong]

Remember that horizon for single rotating array is likely higher (significantly) in the first place, and this is a modern AESA after all. Confirmation will be done immediately, there's no need to wait for second pass. Radar scans same +-60 sector during rotation.

I don't see escorts meeting chinese surface units or normal airpower, unless it's some case of Leyte, when their job is honestly to die for someone's else mistakes.
Normal Chinese long range threat is YJ-83 or YJ-18 from 21" TTs, of which they have 6. Of 6, 2 will be realistically be loaded with heavy decoys 100% of time, and likely at least one with torpedo just in case.
And vise versa, knowing that Constellation is main escort, it won't probably take too much brainpower to try to arrange missile pattern from 60/180/300 deg relative to convoy direction of advance... I.e. things are relative, and (especially when there's no money for 4 arrays) Europeans didn't choose high rotating arrays out of sloopiness.

CAMM-ER isn't UK weapon(only CAMM), and SeaRam blk.2 is ~20 km class. Both are same thing - ~sub-100kg weapon(SRAAM adoptation) with all the possible trajectory optimizations. 10km is Chinese HHQ-10, which is substantially smaller(even if it looks similar).
SeaRAM succesfully outcompeted CAMM in Canada, after all.

People often don't really appreciate how big US "small" weapons actually are. ESSM mk.2 is not that far from some of the better systems which major navies use for their area defense (Barak-8 for example)

This is already assuming the radar is 30m up. Yes the radar scans 60ish degrees at once, but still needs to rotate to cover 360 degrees.

You have to assume Chinese surface units going far out, as otherwise you're assuming the US does a perfect job. Also the Chinese aren't building long range gen 6 stealth strike aircraft for no reason. I'd be pretty confident with the correct engagement geometry at least 1 out of 2-3 subsonic sea skimmers will make it past 1-2 ships with 11km ranged point defense missiles defending a convoy.

Lower sensitivity at those angles does not mean it's blind. Just lower detection range, and when you're looking at an non-LO missile <10miles away you're going to see it. You'll almost definitely detect LO missiles too at that range.

The Europeans chose rotating arrays for cost savings in radar, and ship/ship superstructure, and power generation.
CAMM-ER is still going to exist and is rumored to be integrated in a couple years. I'm also only seeing >10km of range for SeaRam Blk2, so I'll give it 11km of range.

The Israeli and to a less extent Indian navies aren't intending to defend themselves against full scale war with China with themselves as the primary target. So using less performant missiles/ships is accpetable.

You need at least 16x Mk41.

6x VL-ASROCs, 10x tubes for ESSM.

I'd say you want 32 VLS minimum. As this would allow SM's meaning a pair of these ships can escort all the way to Japan/Aus/Phillipines without needing AAW escorts to escort them when Chinese air/surface/submarine threats increase as you get closer to china.

 

[Ainen]

You have to assume Chinese surface units going far out, as otherwise you're assuming the US does a perfect job. Also the Chinese aren't building long range gen 6 stealth strike aircraft for no reason. I'd be pretty confident with the correct engagement geometry at least 1 out of 2-3 subsonic sea skimmers will make it past 1-2 ships with 11km ranged point defense missiles defending a convoy.

My assumption was that even Samar happened mostly because US royally screwed up keeping track of Kurita, otherwise there's no way anyone would let Taffys under a flying car bombardment.

That was 1944. Under current(2025-2035) circumstances, there's essentially no way convoy in a way of PLAN (or US) surface sortie won't be rerouted well in advance. Space, air, sigint/humint with almost immediate information exchange just shouldn't let it happen, unless it's some post-exchange struggle of successor states. Which is... undesirable.

Surface action is possible either between determined forces(3rd body problem, Mahanian adventures), or in-between sneaky fast small forces operating in congested environment.
Neither is use case for FF(X)... Constellation could do that, though honestly it's more of LCS SEWIP work.

FFx problems are submarines operating far beyond their comfortable envelope, relatively rare aerial raiders, as well as drones (for surface drones, units small enough to sneak by).

Also, and crucially in modern situation, I again see potential for surface raiders (any bulk carrier from neutral can take in few guys with in with printed fpv/agricultural drone bomber).

These problems are big enough and IMHO should take priority over becoming secondary fleet unit. More than that, it may honestly concern Chinese right now - as yes, they just built a "perfect constellation" of sorts, but it's ability to deal with novel threats isn't exactly outstanding in any way.

See Russian BSF - one rather secondary weakness (they thought Iranian speed boats isn't their problem) was enough to Jeune ecole the hell out of a rather substantial force into a corner.

 

[cccgong]

That was 1944. Under current(2025-2035) circumstances, there's essentially no way convoy in a way of PLAN (or US) surface sortie won't be rerouted well in advance. Space, air, sigint/humint with almost immediate information exchange just shouldn't let it happen, unless it's some post-exchange struggle of successor states. Which is... undesirable.

Surface action is possible either between determined forces(3rd body problem, Mahanian adventures), or in-between sneaky fast small forces operating in congested environment.
Neither is use case for FF(X)... Constellation could do that, though honestly it's more of LCS SEWIP work.

FFx problems are submarines operating far beyond their comfortable envelope, relatively rare aerial raiders, as well as drones (for surface drones, units small enough to sneak by).

Also, and crucially in modern situation, I again see potential for surface raiders (any bulk carrier from neutral can take in few guys with in with printed fpv/agricultural drone bomber).

These problems are big enough and IMHO should take priority over becoming secondary fleet unit. More than that, it may honestly concern Chinese right now - as yes, they just built a "perfect constellation" of sorts, but it's ability to deal with novel threats isn't exactly outstanding in any way.

See Russian BSF - one rather secondary weakness (they thought Iranian speed boats isn't their problem) was enough to Jeune ecole the hell out of a rather substantial force into a corner.

Subs which are much harder to track exist, and I don't know why you claim they are acting well beyond their comfortable envelope. SAG are much faster than most cargo/logistics ships so they can intercept. To say nothing about long range strike aircraft. It's going to be worth even sacrificing a few long range strike aircraft if you realize some cargo ships are full of missiles being shuttled to the theatre. Both sides will have more or less real time intelligence of where all ships due to EO and SAR sats.

The ranges in a Pacific conflict are much larger. You can direct your convoys around any "neutral" ship traffic and also threaten to sink any neutral traffic that gets within 50-100 miles of your convoy. That will keep all the neutral ships away, any left will be false flagged surface raiders.

This situation is very different from the Russian one where they are stuck with tons of civilian traffic and are much closer to their enemies. Plus i would also add in a large dash of Russian naval incompetence.

 

[Sintra]

So WTF is the point, if it doesn't have ASW gear?

Excelent question and i cant see any good answer...
This Flight I seems to be a regular Cutter with NSM and SeaRam bolted on it.

 

[Jimmo952]

Excelent question and i cant see any good answer...
This Flight I seems to be a regular Cutter with NSM and SeaRam bolted on it.

It will also have a couple of 30mm Mk38s but you are mores or less correct.

Minimal changes over the NSC.

 

[DrRansom]

The FF(X) is a vote of no confidence in NAVSEA and US shipbuilding. Why an existing design? Because US shipbuilders struggle to do anything that hasn't been done before. Why no VLS? Because NAVSEA couldn't design a rowboat.

 

[MadRat]

I rather like Legend-class FF(X} as a solution. They aren't gold-plated mini-Ticos. They are true fourth-rate, affordable, and built for endurance ships to exert a presence. Not every ship has to be a battleship. The USN can now focus on separate hulls for the first through third rate ships.

 

[TomS]

I rather like Legend-class FF(X} as a solution. They aren't gold-plated mini-Ticos. They are true fourth-rate, affordable, and built for endurance ships to exert a presence. Not every ship has to be a battleship. The USN can now focus on separate hulls for the first through third rate ships.

They won't, though. Because we've just decided to spend money on ships the Chinese Maritime Militia could bully.

 

[MadRat]

They won't, though. Because we've just decided to spend money on ships the Chinese Maritime Militia could bully.

I would have been happy with derivatives more inline with MECs like the Famous-class, to get hulls on the water. Last time I saw in the newsthose chinese ships were self shredding themselves in the bully role. We needed hulls yesterday, so I have zero reservations pushing out frigates as frigates. We weren't getting more Burkes under the current conditions.

 

[Reddington777]

I rather like Legend-class FF(X} as a solution. They aren't gold-plated mini-Ticos. They are true fourth-rate, affordable, and built for endurance ships to exert a presence. Not every ship has to be a battleship. The USN can now focus on separate hulls for the first through third rate ships.

The problem was talked about (and it looks like still being talked about) in this thread before and that is "what is the minimum amount of armaments and sensors for a useful surface combatant given mission X"

These ships can be enough to bully some cartel mobs into submission but even against the houthis the baseline version of this NSC derivative can do essentially very little alone. When your big punchers are all in the west pacific, youd still need a bunch of networked assets to work with these FFGs to be barely credible enough against the houthis.

Perhaps a viable solution would be to offload the VLS onto unmanned shooters and only pack them with sensors. But then you need another class of USVs large enough, fast enough and with enough endurance to handle the shooting. either way - the baseline is for most intents and purposes useless beyond keeping ship yards busy and nominally having something in the water while they add / design more useful stuff.

 

[Maskoki]

I rather like Legend-class FF(X} as a solution. They aren't gold-plated mini-Ticos. They are true fourth-rate, affordable, and built for endurance ships to exert a presence. Not every ship has to be a battleship. The USN can now focus on separate hulls for the first through third rate ships.

No doubt…presence matters in peace-time. Builds & strengthens alliances.

But I feel like we missed our chance at optimizing our presence ‘warship’ when we botched the speed requirement for the LCS, resulting in two classes that couldn’t deploy in the 2010s when we needed them, and now won’t help us much in a peer sea control fight.

To me, the US Navy lacks a first rate ship entirely - the PLAN has the type 055, and the US Navy has a conceptual BBG on pretty slides - that Congress hasn’t funded or negotiated down to a (big) CG yet. But at least we’re starting the conversation.

Fortunately, the USN has 75 proven excellent, if old, second rate designs in the water, with 20 more on the way. Given the environment, we should not stop building 2-3 (we’re running 1/year now, so work to do even here) Burkes/year until full production of both the BBG/CG and a not-yet-conceived Burke replacement are achieved.

The third rate warship program, the FFG, just died. The NSC cannot fill this gap. It is noisy and can’t carry the necessary gear to provide ASW to CVSGs & ARGs, and privateer Chinese merchants as WW3 begins. We have to start over here, and aside from a couple Internet forums, I see no discussion about it.

Unfortunately, the NSC is not even fourth rate - too noisy for ASW, and its Mk.110, SeaRAM, & MH-60 form an incomplete package to complete all but very niche missions. It is ok if the fourth rate warship performs but a single task well, but that task must fill a gap the first three rates leave in defeating a peer enemy. ASW - a volume-of-water business that demands lots more tails & dipping than the USN currently envisions, is the biggest fillable gap due to the unaffordable cost building only multi-mission warships (CG, DDG, & FFG) to carry out all ASW missions.

Some say a single mission ship can be an offboard missile magazine. This can fail when the Chinese jam signals between manned warship and arsenal USV.

Some say that fleet ASW will become autonomous. This can fail then unmanned and even undermanned ships break (read about LCS teething & the early ASW mission module to see how important crew is in peacetime, let alone wartime).

A fourth rate ship (an ASW Corvette) must be excellent at ASW to be additive to the fleet. And it must be designed from scratch, because while it may have the buoyancy to eventually mount the ASW & VLS gear, any redesign of the NSC to satisfy the ASW single-mission will end like the Constellation - cancelled due to the magnitude of change.

The US Navy’s #1 problem isn’t its industrial infrastructure (certainly a problem, but not #1). It’s #1 problem is understanding & credibly articulating ‘warship-packaged’ capabilities it needs to return to its place as a navy with an ability to fight a peer, and succinctly and definitively articulating it’s requirements to industry designers in ‘producible’ flights, to avoid design/build-creep.

 

[Josh_TN]

In the reality I live in that isn't an option.

I don't think a clean sheet design will arrive quicker than initial FF(X) deliveries. Would a clean sheet be more functional and suitable for the USN than a NSC, undoubtedly, but right now the USN no longer has the street cred to manage that process by themselves.

The other option is just more Constellations, since two are being built regardless. There’s your ASW and AAW. If another ship is preferable, build it from scratch and built Connie until it’s ready. Problem solved with no LCS like ships lying around.

 

[Josh_TN]

Excelent question and i cant see any good answer...
This Flight I seems to be a regular Cutter with NSM and SeaRam bolted on it.

The point is “look at my fleet! Winning!” And probably someone is being paid off or otherwise grifted.

 

[Ozair]

The other option is just more Constellations, since two are being built regardless. There’s your ASW and AAW. If another ship is preferable, build it from scratch and built Connie until it’s ready. Problem solved with no LCS like ships lying around.

Except the design work still isn't finished and the absolute earliest expected delivery date is April 29 for the first vessel. It's not clear, to me at least, whether the US also expected to build the design in other yards.

So they could and maybe that should be the backstop option but it doesn't appear to be an option any longer per this Administration and SecNav.