It will also have a couple of 30mm Mk38s but you are mores or less correct.
Minimal changes over the NSC.
US FF(X) Program
- Thread starter Forest Green
- Start date
It will also have a couple of 30mm Mk38s but you are mores or less correct.
Minimal changes over the NSC.
DrRansom
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 15 December 2012
- Messages
- 714
- Reaction score
- 346
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 10,318
- Reaction score
- 17,229
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
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 23 March 2025
- Messages
- 688
- Reaction score
- 2,216
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.
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.
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.
The point is “look at my fleet! Winning!” And probably someone is being paid off or otherwise grifted.
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.
Reddington777
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 23 March 2025
- Messages
- 688
- Reaction score
- 2,216
I think I read somewhere that they were expecting Hanwha/ Philly to start building the NSC FFG too and possibly borrowing and building upon the NSC variant with Korean expertise.
DrRansom
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 15 December 2012
- Messages
- 714
- Reaction score
- 346
There's no hint Constellations will be ready anytime soon. Instead, it seems likely they'll come off the shipyard later than a Legend-class Frigate. Nor is there any sign that the ship will be cheap enough to be worthwhile or anything other than another NAVSEA dead end. I've seen rumors that they're already overweight and without any growth margin, and the design still isn't complete.
This is a desperate move for a desperate situation. The Navy has completely squandered 25 years burning money and credibility. Naval shipbuilding has never been in a worse state, Naval architecture in this country is a scandal. The FF(X) is the consequence of the DDG-1000, the LCS, and the Constellation failures.
The last time NAVSEA designed a new surface ship, it was the LCS. The last time NAVSEA modified an existing ship, it was the Constellation. For everyone saying "just design something new to actually be useful" - there's no sign anyone in the US can design a warship this side of 2030. The Navy is functionally starting its surface ship design capability from scratch.
So, why are they building such a limited ship? Because time is out and the US cannot do anything better. It isn't a very complicated answer, just an awful one.
This is a desperate move for a desperate situation. The Navy has completely squandered 25 years burning money and credibility. Naval shipbuilding has never been in a worse state, Naval architecture in this country is a scandal. The FF(X) is the consequence of the DDG-1000, the LCS, and the Constellation failures.
The last time NAVSEA designed a new surface ship, it was the LCS. The last time NAVSEA modified an existing ship, it was the Constellation. For everyone saying "just design something new to actually be useful" - there's no sign anyone in the US can design a warship this side of 2030. The Navy is functionally starting its surface ship design capability from scratch.
So, why are they building such a limited ship? Because time is out and the US cannot do anything better. It isn't a very complicated answer, just an awful one.
My reference was to the Constellation, not the NSC which will definitely be built in yards other than HII.
It makes no sense to build two and then pull the plug. I consider it possible Congress attempts to override the decision once Johnson loses his gavel.
Agree 100% but those two vessels may never even enter active USN service but be sold off the slip.
They could but so far have shown little backbone. Yes midterm results may change that but the evidence to date isn't in their favour.
Reddington777
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 23 March 2025
- Messages
- 688
- Reaction score
- 2,216
Agreed - all of these programs (with exception of the NSC FFG) and proposed changes need to survive the next admin change before they actually mean anything. I'd be very surprised if they can even finish the two constellation ships before the next election cycles.
Building ships with no capability is not a solution. If it was, the U.S. could simply keep building LCS, or the KSA version there of.
The only way this makes sense is if these FFXs are upgraded over time.
Even in their initial forum, they will be useful in scenarios like we see now in some theaters, enforcing blockades and running down smugglers.
Low operating costs, excellent endurance and seakeeping, give them better blue potential than the LCS wanne-be speedboat.
I am certainly not making the case they are ideal warships.
Hopefully though, we can get these into series production across multiple yards fairly rapidly while also improving their capabilities.
I admit I'm an optimist.
As has been said many times these boats will not be significantly lower cost to run than ffgx. The will also cost 1.05 billion vs ffgx at 1.2 billion.
They also won’t be upgradable with the things that matter, ASW capability, AESA radar panels, more VLS cells.
If you want more coast guard cutters for sure enforcement buy them for the coast guard. The envisioned wartime roles don’t exist, especially as the Chinese are adding 60 vls tubes on merchant ships that will likely be false flagged.
The LCS MMSC version is about 60% of the FFX with much more capability and is literally being built now. The FFX is purely a political play, as if they wanted capability the would have just bought some MMSC.
If only FFGX existed. Lets see if it ever comes to pass and isn't 1000 tons overweight and the cost of a Burke by the time it's delivered.
I don't buy the political play. Its not like most voters know or care anything about this.
I know some believe its all politics or conspiracy.
My take is this is more a desperation move...like maybe we can actually build these things before 2032.
Not James Stockdale
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 29 August 2025
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 184
The purpose of the FF(X) Flight I is to be an LCS that can actually remain at sea for a reasonable period of time. There is no way the Navy is going to try CODAG and waterjets again on a ship this big, but it's not a huge deal breaker for the Saudis because their ships don't get underway. Hopefully Philly can start building 4923-style Flight IIs soon, although I would also like to see them build a few T-AHs on their training ship hull. The main purpose of the early ships is probably to get the supply chain and long-lead items moving to make it easier for new yards to jump in. As far as upgrades, the Anzac-class frigates are smaller than a Legend-class and got entire CEAFAR masts, so I wouldn't put it entirely out if the realm of possibility.
There were two estimates for the ffgx cost, one by the CBO another by the navy. The both have been trending down and seemed to have converged around 1.2 billion. So that’s the current best estimate.
Also 2 ffgx will still be built. So the design is going to be worked out no matter what. The also have a multi year head start on working out the design modifications over the ffx.
The NSC line has been dead for a couple years and the partly finished ship was scrapped. So there’s going to be lead time there on top of any design changes the navy made. Remember the fremm was level 2 survivability and the navy wanted level 3 which was a large contribution to the design issues. The nsc is level 1, so if survivability requirements are increased it will be just as if not worse design wise than ffgx.
I doubt these will hit the water more than 1 year before the ffgx if not later
It’s a political play not for the voters, but for corporations and donors all corruption.
Well...let's see how the FFGX thing works out. There is still redesign work to be done and a lot of construction.
We are a long way from the finish line with those things, and that's if the schedule doesnt slip further and costs don't increase (which they probably will).
Those dang donors of corruption. I hear they were behind the Kennedy assassination and the fake moon landings.
I will admit I am not a conspiracy theorists.
Human incompetence explains a lot more than elaborate conspiracies.
Lastly, I am assuming the decision makers in this case are working with better/more current data than I have access to.
These are big, tough decisions being made. History is rife with Defense Secretaries, Admirals, Generals, ... not getting it right in retrospective.
Most, I trust, are decent, intelligent people faced with very difficult decisions.
Last edited:
FF(X) wouldn’t be a bad solution if the focus was on closing the ASW gap. The changes for ASW would probably be fairly minimal - rafting the diesels, fitting Captas 4 VDS sonar, adding a torpedo magazine for helicopters and fixed torp launchers.
You could even turn NSC into a pretty decent open ocean escort with a radar upgrade (rotating AESA like TRS4D or Sea Giraffe 4A), 12-32x ESSM in a VLS behind the gun, and RAM on top of the hangar. The result would be pretty much like the NSC patrol frigate proposals from 10 years ago.
But that would require a completely different direction from the ASuW oriented “combatant” that this administration is pursuing, which fills a niche that doesn’t need to be filled. (Or just add NSM to the stern deck of the USCG’s 10 NSCs and call it a day).
Two FFGX are being built regardless of cost or time. It is beyond reason that simply building more is anything more than a matter of money, and one thing FFGX provides is numbers of sufficiently capable ships at yards not already producing Burke. FFX is an LCS remake.
The current US administration does not believe in basic facts or science. When the president did not like the job numbers, he simply fired the person who produced job numbers. Vaccines that have be used for almost a century are being called into question. Cabinet meetings are exercises in group felacio on a North Korean level.
You ARE smarter than the people making these decisions.
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 6,019
- Reaction score
- 7,571
Ask Rex Tillerson.
LightningFan1959
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 11 May 2020
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 115
The only aspect in which they are superior to FFG(X) [including many of the competitors for that programme] is that if one gets sunk there's going to be less people dying.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,977
- Reaction score
- 24,081
The major problem is that the NSC isn't quiet enough for ASW.
The FFX needs to be modified for ASW silencing. Rafted machinery and Prairie/Masker installed. A notional "Flight I" version that isn't silenced is only usable for smuggler interdiction, and should be sold off as soon as the silenced Flight IIs come into service.
A proper FFX needs:
The FFX needs to be modified for ASW silencing. Rafted machinery and Prairie/Masker installed. A notional "Flight I" version that isn't silenced is only usable for smuggler interdiction, and should be sold off as soon as the silenced Flight IIs come into service.
A proper FFX needs:
- Hull sonar (or shallow towed array) and a VDS at the stern.
- Helicopter deck with beartrap and hangar (space for 2 birds or 1+2x VTOL UAVs if possible).
- Primary Weaponry needs at least 6x VL-ASROC and a dozen ESSMs. 16x Mk41s isn't really enough, as you'd have 6x VL-ASROC, 3x+ ESSM cells, and only ~7x SM2s. 24x Mk41s is probably the minimum if you're planning on SM2s, 16x Mk41 might be viable if you're only using ESSMs, as you'd have 6x ASROCs and 40x ESSM.
- Guns:
- While I prefer the OTO 76mm with DART and Vulcano ammunition, the 57mm Mk110 is acceptable.
- Plus it needs 4x Mk38s (or 30mm RWS) for dealing with small boat/UxV swarms.
It only matters if the ships work and cost less than a Burke by the time they are delivered.
Right now, the are purported to be significantly overweight and slower than required to meet their mission requirements.
Now we can build them like that or attempt to redesign them to address those issues.
Ideas floated include going to an alloy superstructure or reducing weapons load.
No...they are not close to being delivered and cost estimates are as likely to be as accurate as my Grandmother's Derby predictions.
I truly hope the Connies are a raving success but that's by no means a sure thing.
The closest thing to FF 4923 on the Legend hull is the the pseudo-PF 4921 variant for the Saudis. It was offered with options for a hull sonar, towed-array sonar, and CEAFAR; Mk 56 VLS for ESSM; Harpoon; and a rapid-fire version of the 76mm gun. Seems like torpedoes, cranes, and re-arranged deck spaces. Let's not forget USN and USCG build to the same survivability standards for this hull size. Foreign designs did not meet them. It's a bit easier to upgrade a US coast guard ship design than it is to completely redesign a foreign frigate design to USN survivability standards.
Last edited:
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,977
- Reaction score
- 24,081
No. Alloy superstructures are terrible. They are flammable, easier to damage, less protective, and cause galvanic corrosion at the contact points between steel hull and aluminum superstructure.
You can only reduce weapons load so far. Bare minimum for anything resembling competency is 16 cells Mk41 (6x ASROC and 40x ESSM), 57mm, RAM/SeaRAM, plus the anti-UxV gear. And that leaves the ship effectively unable to load SM2s for convoy defense due to lack of magazine depth. If your convoy defense scenarios require SM2s, you need at least 32x Mk41 if not 64x.
32x Mk41 would allow for 20x SM2s, 24x ESSMs, and 6x ASROC.
48x Mk41 would allow for 32x SM2s, 40x ESSMs, and 6x ASROC.
64x Mk41 would allow for 48x SM2s, 40x ESSMs, and 6x ASROC.
=========================
On a different thought:
I'm honestly starting to think that the FF(X)s, the bottom end ASW-only ships, should be a large USV instead of manned. This would save a very large amount of hull volume for racks and food storage, as the USV would only have crew onboard for a week at a time at most. We're still probably looking at a 3-5kton ship, however. Towing a pair of towed arrays is not for a tiny ship.
That fact they are considering an alloy superstructure this late in the game is an indicator the design is in trouble.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,977
- Reaction score
- 24,081
Agreed.
There's been allot of advances in materials science regarding corrosion. I've made my opinions on protection/survivability clear in that it's over-rated in modern ships and the Japanese and to a lesser extent the Europeans agree with me.
If it's enables getting a ship out the door much quicker due to less redesign or enables a better ship on the FREMM hull they should 100% do it.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,977
- Reaction score
- 24,081
Disagree. And honestly it's the (lack of) fire resistance that most concerns me.
Hi,
I don't believe that is true. For instance I believe that per DPC-010/079-1 "DESIGN PRACTICES AND CRITERIA FOR U.S. NAVY SURFACE SHIP STABILITY AND RESERVE BUOYANCY" I believe that combatants of the size in question the design length of damage is 15% of the ship's length between perpendiculars but that a Coast Guard vessel is typically only designed to a 12.5% LBP length of damage.
All knowing Secret Projects Forum guy knows more than the US Navy lmao
Similar threads
-
-
A 21st Century Tribal Class ? - RN Type 26 refocused to Commonwealth Needs- Started by Thorvic
- Replies: 26
-
-
-