US FF(X) Program

[cccgong]

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

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. 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).

 

[donnage99]

Well at least as I hoped for there is the plan to operate it as a drone mothership with accompanied assets for munition depth. Will be interesting to see how that plays out with the basic design. I suspect a Flt II will be very quick out after the first few Flt I designs with VLS and other add ons.

Flight II will basically be a new ship which means more delays aka constellation 2.0. Ship need to be fully redesigned inside out just to meet acoustic signature suitable for sub hunting much less intergrated fire control, radar or vls

 

[Ozair]

Flight II will basically be a new ship which means more delays aka constellation 2.0. Ship need to be fully redesigned inside out just to meet acoustic signature suitable for sub hunting much less intergrated fire control, radar or vls

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.

 

[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?

 

[Maskoki]

ASW corvette. Single purpose ASW ship to work east of Guam. Doesn’t need 32 VLS cells, a SPY-6, or Naval Strike Missiles, but does need a hangar, a flight deck, a full SQQ-89 suite, and self protective gear: COMBATSS CMS, SPS-80, 8 VLS cells (ESSM & VLA, so could be tactical-length), SeaRSM, JQL launcher, RWS gun, 7m RHIBs. Slightly more displacement than a National Security Cutter to quieten the machinery, and mount the towed sonars & the VLS. Hopefully less expensive than an eventual FFG, which is going to have to be bigger than the Constellation/FREMM to provide ASW for CVSGs & ARGs west of Guam & privateer in the Indian Ocean. Sure, we could just build 200 FFGs, but I’m just trying to shave cost where we can. We’ll need ~100 of each, so the economics/volume might make the KKG design worthwhile.

 

[cccgong]

ASW corvette. Single purpose ASW ship to work east of Guam. Doesn’t need 32 VLS cells, a SPY-6, or Naval Strike Missiles, but does need a hangar, a flight deck, a full SQQ-89 suite, and self protective gear: COMBATSS CMS, SPS-80, 8 VLS cells (ESSM & VLA, so could be tactical-length), SeaRSM, JQL launcher, RWS gun, 7m RHIBs. Slightly more displacement than a National Security Cutter to quieten the machinery, and mount the towed sonars & the VLS. Hopefully less expensive than an eventual FFG, which is going to have to be bigger than the Constellation/FREMM to provide ASW for CVSGs & ARGs west of Guam & privateer in the Indian Ocean. Sure, we could just build 200 FFGs, but I’m just trying to shave cost where we can. We’ll need ~100 of each, so the economics/volume might make the KKG design worthwhile.

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

 

[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.

 

[Maskoki]

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

‘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.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Perhaps like USAF moving to an NGAD FoS concept, with several core technologies offboarded to distributed unmanned teammates, FF(X) could enable the USN something crudely similar. Oddly, just like with NGAD, I see power generation to be a critical enabler, along with some kind of headroom to adopt new DE based effectors.

 

[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.

 

[B2Blain]

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.

I was listening to the CAVASSHIPS podcast. They had on Bryan Clark and Brent Sadler. Clark is a former sub guy. He said a couple of things which I didn't know. He said surface ships are losing favor as ASW platforms, that subs would hear them first and would be able to get a shot off sooner than the surface combatant. And I don't thinking he was talking about surface ships giving up their position using active sonar. Additionally he said the ASW rationale for the Constellation was eroding. Clark instead proposed the use of unmanned systems.

To some extent this has always been true. Launching a torpedo or anti ship missile would give up the subs position and increase its vulnerability to prosecution by patrol aircraft, helicopters, and surface ships. Unless near peer subs have gotten extremely quiet and I am not sure there isn't a need for ASW focused frigates. The sub would still have launch a salvo relatively close to a target, unless there have been advances in under water communication or can subs now extend the range of their sonar with UUVs?

 

[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/secnav-new-frigate-will-be-based-on-national-security-cutter-first-ffx-to-be-built-at-ingalls

 

[Scott Kenny]

ASW corvette. Single purpose ASW ship to work east of Guam. Doesn’t need 32 VLS cells, a SPY-6, or Naval Strike Missiles, but does need a hangar, a flight deck, a full SQQ-89 suite, and self protective gear: COMBATSS CMS, SPS-80, 8 VLS cells (ESSM & VLA, so could be tactical-length), SeaRSM, JQL launcher, RWS gun, 7m RHIBs. Slightly more displacement than a National Security Cutter to quieten the machinery, and mount the towed sonars & the VLS. Hopefully less expensive than an eventual FFG, which is going to have to be bigger than the Constellation/FREMM to provide ASW for CVSGs & ARGs west of Guam & privateer in the Indian Ocean. Sure, we could just build 200 FFGs, but I’m just trying to shave cost where we can. We’ll need ~100 of each, so the economics/volume might make the KKG design worthwhile.

You need at least 16x Mk41.

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

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.

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.

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/secnav-new-frigate-will-be-based-on-national-security-cutter-first-ffx-to-be-built-at-ingalls

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

 

[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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

That was for Ainen's bare-minimum capabilities KKG. The thing that doesn't even have a SPY6 fitted.

My minimum FF would have at least 32 cells of Mk41, but that only gives ~20x Standards, 6x VL-ASROCs, and 6x4 ESSMs.

 

[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.