US FF(X) Program

[Scott Kenny]

Of the two Constellation class ships the Navy apparently plans to take delivery of, what happens if the Navy likes what they have to offer?

Combined response:

The decision appears to have been made at the political level and likely will be unmoved without people leaving their positions or perhaps congressional action. I doubt anything changes during this administration personally, though perhaps 2027 brings a big shift. In any case, I would think two ships potentially enough to keep the yard busy to 2029. The big loss will be long lead subcontractor items should anyone want to revive the program. I have no idea how salvageable that situation may be.

Well, considering that at the earliest possible the ships won't be delivered and operating until late in the administration AFTER this one, the political decision-makers will be different.

And IF that set of decision-makers were to decide that the Constellations were good enough to be built en mass, it'd be possible.

Then why are they building them and planning on taking delivery and keeping [the Constellations] around? I understand that they have contractual obligations but if the ships are worthless they should just scrap them altogether. They certainly have the political cover to do so if things are really this bad with the program.

To make a shipyard capable of building a warship on the Great Lakes. That's what the continuing program is for.

 

[Felocie]

To make a shipyard capable of building a warship on the Great Lakes. That's what the continuing program is for.

I still don't understand why they would continue Constellation over assigning other programs to the yard then, it's a hell of a lot of money for a dead end program, especially for a government that claims to want to combat waste

 

[Jimmo952]

Combined response:

Well, considering that at the earliest possible the ships won't be delivered and operating until late in the administration AFTER this one, the political decision-makers will be different.

And IF that set of decision-makers were to decide that the Constellations were good enough to be built en mass, it'd be possible.




To make a shipyard capable of building a warship on the Great Lakes. That's what the continuing program is for.

If the ships are delivered by 2027, I will eat my hat. My prediction is sometime in the early 2030s and probably a few years after that before they do their first deployment.

 

[Felocie]

If the ships are delivered by 2027, I will eat my hat. My prediction is sometime in the early 2030s and probably a few years after that before they do their first deployment.

For FF(X)? That's an extremely pessimistic timeframe, why do you think that?

 

[Jimmo952]

For FF(X)? That's an extremely pessimistic timeframe, why do you think that?

I meant for the Connies.

 

[Felocie]

I meant for the Connies.

Ah, that makes more sense

 

[Jimmo952]

And what proof does he have to back that up? that_person’s source was literally a guy who bid on the program and it seems Goddard is a retired RAN rear admiral? What connection does Goddard have to the FFG(X) program?

that’s why every navy on earth can deploy and sustain 11 CVNs? I’m sure China is just “working with whatever hardware they can obtain”.

Once again, NAVSEA isn’t even blameless as I pointed out. It’s just not all NAVSEA’s doing and the evidence supports this.

Rear Admiral Goddard was working for FMM.

Did you read his statements on the project? It's worth a read.

 

[Felocie]

Did you read his statements on the project? It's worth a read.

Do you mind shooting me a link? I've read/watched a couple things but I'd like to see the one to which you refer

 

[Scott Kenny]

I still don't understand why they would continue Constellation over assigning other programs to the yard then, it's a hell of a lot of money for a dead end program, especially for a government that claims to want to combat waste

What other programs are there, though?

Burke 3s? I don't think those can be launched from that yard, not enough water depth. Same reason the Connies don't have a hull sonar.

What could the Coast Guard provide?

 

[Felocie]

What other programs are there, though?

If Constellation is as wholly crippled as is claimed, LCS is a better choice seeing as the issues are broadly resolved. Soon to be in demand: LSM and potentially T-AOL (that program is a black hole of it's own though so I won't say that with any sort of certainty). They could also start building first gen USVs, we know that's what Navy wants to increase magazine depth and disperse lethality.

Burke 3s? I don't think those can be launched from that yard, not enough water depth.

Correct

Same reason the Connies don't have a hull sonar.

A bow sonar isn't really needed anymore anyway, they're a nice to have but a TA and VDS are more than enough. Hence a bow sonar was never really an operation requirement, even if FMM couldn't build ships with them anyway.

What could the Coast Guard provide?

Maybe Heritage class? I haven't followed it too closely but I know Eastern Shipbuilding has had two hulls cancelled.

 

[Kat Tsun]

And what proof does he have to back that up? that_person’s source was literally a guy who bid on the program and it seems Goddard is a retired RAN rear admiral? What connection does Goddard have to the FFG(X) program?

Goddard is a senior VP at FMM. He was previously the CEO? He's been in and out of FMM for years because they asked him to run FFG(X).

that’s why every navy on earth can deploy and sustain 11 CVNs?

Within about 6 months the USN will be a 10 CVN navy and there is a fair chance that within 48-72 months it will be a 9 CVN navy.

Another 60 months after that, the PLAN will likely be a 9 carrier navy, assuming neither side has mutually destructed itself in a war.

Of course, the difference is the PLAN will be able to deploy and sustain their carriers. The USN will continue to struggle because industries don't bounce back in 10 years. Nor 20. The PLA military buildup for 2035 has been ongoing since about 1995 (i.e. J-20, Type 004, etc.) at a fairly steady pace. Thankfully they're not the Soviet Union and are putting fairly few resources into it.

It's just that a country of literally 1.5 billion people can afford a large navy simply by existing. The U.S. really had to spend to get 16 CVBGs in the Cold War. China would probably need to spend like America does right now to do that, and could probably get over 20 carriers, if it spent like the US did in the Cold War.

I’m sure China is just “working with whatever hardware they can obtain”.

They can attain a lot but they still have limits. Far less limits than the USN, but limits still, of course. We probably won't see a 16 carrier group navy out of China, 6-11 seems far more likely, but with sufficient escorts. They're still making LHAs about two to four times faster than the USN does, for example. When the 004s hit stride, they will likely come out two or three times as fast as Ford CVNs, too.

The U.S. can maintain an advantage in submarines, at least for the next 5-10 years, after which it becomes questionable. Space is still an advantage, which is being eroded over time, and America still has the only functional strategic ABM system in the world. Probably a bit too early to say whether or not China will take the lead in strategic aviation but if they can make H-20 like they can make J-20 we can expect dozens of them, and a plane for plane match with B-2 and the B-52 force, at least.

Once again, NAVSEA isn’t even blameless as I pointed out. It’s just not all NAVSEA’s doing and the evidence supports this.

It's about 50/50. FMM isn't equipped to design a ship from ground up and NAVSEA isn't internally informed enough to guide ship design.

 

[joshjosh]

Do you mind shooting me a link? I've read/watched a couple things but I'd like to see the one to which you refer

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ffg-x.33649/post-865420

 

[Dilandu]

I’m sure China is just “working with whatever hardware they can obtain”.

Yes, they do. Their admirals don't subject shipbuilding programs to their every whim; their goal is get hardware first, perfect its later.

 

[Josh_TN]

What other programs are there, though?

Burke 3s? I don't think those can be launched from that yard, not enough water depth. Same reason the Connies don't have a hull sonar.

What could the Coast Guard provide?

The Medium landing craft, whatever they are calling it, for one.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Medium landing craft, whatever they are calling it, for one.

Thought that was cancelled?

 

[Felocie]

Within about 6 months the USN will be a 10 CVN navy and there is a fair chance that within 48-72 months it will be a 9 CVN navy.

This is planned to be temporary

Another 60 months after that, the PLAN will likely be a 9 carrier navy, assuming neither side has mutually destructed itself in a war.

Bold assertion, it also doesn't account for the logistical support required and the general less glamourous sides to raising a naval aviation forces

Of course, the difference is the PLAN will be able to deploy and sustain their carriers. The USN will continue to struggle because industries don't bounce back in 10 years. Nor 20. The PLA military buildup for 2035 has been ongoing since about 1995 (i.e. J-20, Type 004, etc.) at a fairly steady pace. Thankfully they're not the Soviet Union and are putting fairly few resources into it.

You got any proof to back this up? There are no indications that China has programs to meet and exceed USN global deployment capabilities, nor significant evidence that they will be able to substantially support their carrier programs any better. Given the global deployments of the USN, I'm not sure what industries and sustainment issues you're referring to either?

It's about 50/50. FMM isn't equipped to design a ship from ground up and NAVSEA isn't internally informed enough to guide ship design.

That's very similar to what I've been trying to say. It's incredibly reductive for anyone to bring up the NAVSEA strawman every time a potential problem is mentioned because it isn't just a NAVSEA problem when programs go awry.

Thought that was cancelled?

They are procuring derivatives of the LST 100 from Damen, they paid 3.3 million dollars for the technical data package and will manufacture them domestically, although they are looking for international partners to build with aiui.

Yes, they do. Their admirals don't subject shipbuilding programs to their every whim; their goal is get hardware first, perfect its later.

Yeah... that really tracks with the massive amount of programs coming out of China rn.... seems like a military absolutely HAMSTRUNG by bureaucracy.

 

[Felocie]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ffg-x.33649/post-865420

(Reposted in FFG(X) thread)

 

[joshjosh]

Perhaps FFG(X) discussion should be moved to the FFG(X) thread

 

[Dragonlady]

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

No as per USNI:

 

[Scott Kenny]

No as per USNI:

So, it's a frigate that can't hunt submarines?

WTF is the point, then?

 

[1635yankee]

One problem is that the NSC, with basically no armament is expensive -- I've read about $750 million -- Kitting them up to an FFG standard would definitely push them well over $1,200 million. I suspect that the integration of the weapons and systems needed for the role will take several years and delivery of the first of class a few more after that.

NAVSEA has outsourced too much technical expertise.

 

[cccgong]

One problem is that the NSC, with basically no armament is expensive -- I've read about $750 million -- Kitting them up to an FFG standard would definitely push them well over $1,200 million. I suspect that the integration of the weapons and systems needed for the role will take several years and delivery of the first of class a few more after that.

NAVSEA has outsourced too much technical expertise.

The last 2 ships of the first batch of 6 NSC were 1 billion each inflation adjusted.

 

[Scott Kenny]

One problem is that the NSC, with basically no armament is expensive -- I've read about $750 million -- Kitting them up to an FFG standard would definitely push them well over $1,200 million. I suspect that the integration of the weapons and systems needed for the role will take several years and delivery of the first of class a few more after that.

NAVSEA has outsourced too much technical expertise.

Fit them with LCS combat systems, maybe? Isn't it much of the same stuff? Same radar, 57mm, etc?

 

[cccgong]

Fit them with LCS combat systems, maybe? Isn't it much of the same stuff? Same radar, 57mm, etc?

They are 1 billion each for the CG fit so that won’t help.

 

[Scott Kenny]

They are 1 billion each for the CG fit so that won’t help.

It'd save time and development cost.

Wouldn't be cheap, but would not be delayed by the time needed to integrate new hardware.

 

[Dragonlady]

So, it's a frigate that can't hunt submarines?

WTF is the point, then?

Beats me lol. IIRC the hull machinery isn’t acoustically dampened/isolated so even if it had onboard sonar it’d be practically useless. Not to mention that enemy SSKs will be able to hear it from dozens of miles away.

I didn’t think the USN could do even worse than LCS, but by god they seem determined to try lmao. At this point they would’ve been better off adopting the MMSC variant of the Freedom class as an “interim” SSC until a clean-sheet design is ready.

 

[Felocie]

Was this not repeated like 50 times in the past couple weeks? FF(X) is not fit for purpose, it doesn't make sense when the gaps in the fleet are identified and addressed

 

[Felocie]

I suspect that the integration of the weapons and systems needed for the role will take several years and delivery of the first of class a few more after that.

NSC are already FFBNW a 16 cell Mk41 for ESSM, SVTT, and the Mk 144. They were also originally fitted with RAST so fitting them to USN FFs is simple enough. Weapons integration is nothing but the problem is the weapons add nothing that the USN needs

 

[Dragonlady]

NSC are already FFBNW a 16 cell Mk41 for ESSM, SVTT, and the Mk 144. They were also originally fitted with RAST so fitting them to USN FFs is simple enough. Weapons integration is nothing but the problem is the weapons add nothing that the USN needs

At this point my “grand proposal” would be to take a Burke hull & do the following:

Eliminate the rear 64 cell VLS (use the gained space for something like a “flexdeck” a la stanflex IDK).
Reduce main propulsion to two LM2500s, install a 4th SSTG, and give each SSTG the hybrid propulsion retrofit that was proposed 15 years ago.
Remove SQS-53 and replace it a smaller, more littoral-focused sonar in the bulb.
Incorporate a VDS of some kind.
Replace SPY-1 with SPY-6v3.
Replace Aegis with COMBATSS-21.
Maybe replace the 5” with the 57mm.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Still don’t understand why USN was so hellbent on level 3 survivability. It’s a frigate FFS! The Perry’s, Knox’s, & Garcia’s were IIRC all built to level 2 standards and served just fine.

 

[Josh_TN]

So, it's a frigate that can't hunt submarines?

WTF is the point, then?

Grift.

 

[Felocie]

Still don’t understand why USN was so hellbent on level 3 survivability. It’s a frigate FFS! The Perry’s, Knox’s, & Garcia’s were IIRC all built to level 2 standards and served just fine.

They don’t want level 3 survivability. Constellation was to be built to level 2 survivability, as is Burke. I don’t know where he’s got the level 3 idea from but it is false

 

[Kat Tsun]

Grift.

Is it really a grift if they're down bad for hulls though?

That said, they're talking about mission modules, so strap in for LCS II: Electric Boogaloo I guess.

 

[Jimmo952]

Is it really a grift if they're down bad for hulls though?

That said, they're talking about mission modules, so strap in for LCS II: Electric Boogaloo I guess.

Hopefully, we will see better equipped, more capable versions moving forward.

 

[Felocie]

At this point my “grand proposal” would be to take a Burke hull & do the following:

Not the worst ideas but I would poke a couple holes in it, starting with the cost of a Burke hull and the need to open a third line

Eliminate the rear 64 cell VLS (use the gained space for something like a “flexdeck” a la stanflex IDK).

Something similar was proposed for fitting LCS modules to Burke flt Is. I'm not sure if you'd need mission modules. A large space to service UxVs might be more handy

Remove SQS-53 and replace it a smaller, more littoral-focused sonar in the bulb.
Incorporate a VDS of some kind.

Just fit the same ASW suite as on Constellation, it is basically what the USN needs

Replace Aegis with COMBATSS-21.

No, Aegis Baseline 10 is way better than COMBATSS-21 and better suited to the mission this needs to fill. Especially given the sensor-shooter focus of manned ships going forward, sensors and processing should be prioritized.

The other thing would be generating capacity for DEWs. I can honestly say I'm not sure the requisite generating capacity and the quietening measures to optimize the hull for ASW could be installed without such major changes to the hull that it would end up being another Constellation fiasco

 

[Dragonlady]

Not the worst ideas but I would poke a couple holes in it, starting with the cost of a Burke hull and the need to open a third line

Something similar was proposed for fitting LCS modules to Burke flt Is. I'm not sure if you'd need mission modules. A large space to service UxVs might be more handy

Just fit the same ASW suite as on Constellation, it is basically what the USN needs

No, Aegis Baseline 10 is way better than COMBATSS-21 and better suited to the mission this needs to fill. Especially given the sensor-shooter focus of manned ships going forward, sensors and processing should be prioritized.

The other thing would be generating capacity for DEWs. I can honestly say I'm not sure the requisite generating capacity and the quietening measures to optimize the hull for ASW could be installed without such major changes to the hull that it would end up being another Constellation fiasco

1) I’m going with the “steel is cheap” philosophy. IIRC most of a warship’s unit cost is its combat systems & (to a lesser extent) propulsion machinery, so the best way to cut down cost is to pare down those systems without unduly impacting combat capability. Also the Burke hull-form is a proven performer with excellent growth margin that already meets the Navy’s survivability requirements. Finding a third yard is a bit of a challenge, but I think it can be done. NASSCO is definitely a possible option. IIRC they already do repair & refit work on large surface combatants so they have the capacity.

2) Either way is fine with me. How the space is used is IMO less important than creating the space in the first place.

3) That’s basically my opinion as well, but I feel there are still some use cases for hull-borne sonar, mainly in mine-detection & avoidance, situations where deploying a towed array may be troublesome, & detecting subs hiding on the seafloor in littoral areas. Something like the SeaBeam 3050N would be a good candidate for this IMO.

4) I understand that COMBATSS-21 is heavily derived from Aegis, is fully open-architecture, and that it was the CMS slated for installation on the Constellations. Does Baseline 10 have the same level of open-architecture access?

5) That’s really shouldn’t be a problem. IIRC the upgraded SSTGs on the flight IIIs can each produce 4MW. With the 4 SSTGs planned in my notional “Burke-frigate”, that’s 16MW of power. Also aren’t the Burkes already equipped with extensive hull-quieting measures?

They don’t want level 3 survivability. Constellation was to be built to level 2 survivability, as is Burke. I don’t know where he’s got the level 3 idea from but it is false

I see.

Also I thought the Burkes were constructed to level III? IIRC OPNAV 9070.1 explicitly listed DDGs as surface combatants that should be designed to level III standards.

 

[CordyB]

The contract for the first Burke was issued in 1985 three years prior to issue of the survivability standard OpNavInst 9070.1 in 1988 with Levels I (Auxiliary & Support Ships+Mine Warfare), II (Amphibs, Frigates & RAS), III (CV & Surface Combatants). I doubt Burke met the Level III standard to the letter but do not think it would have been too far off.

As have previously posted OpNavInst 9070.1 with Levels I, II & III is now history as superseded back in 2012 by OpNavInst 9070.1A after the LCS fiasco with no Levels specified, its whatever NAVSEA think appropriate at the time.

 

[Felocie]

1) I’m going with the “steel is cheap” philosophy. IIRC most of a warship’s unit cost is its combat systems & (to a lesser extent) propulsion machinery, so the best way to cut down cost is to pare down those systems without unduly impacting combat capability.

All well and good but it’s very hard to cut down the more relevant capabilities (particularly sensors!) and still save cash. You could theoretically fit SPY-6(V)3 but that is a significant redesign, and then you end up with the Connie issue again.

4) I understand that COMBATSS-21 is heavily derived from Aegis, is fully open-architecture, and that it was the CMS slated for installation on the Constellations. Does Baseline 10 have the same level of open-architecture access?

Essentially yes, the open architecture design is comparable. More importantly AEGIS can handle BMD and, while this notional Burke variant (let’s call it DDV26) will have a smaller onboard magazine, future fleet magazine depth is predicted to be mostly handled by UxVs, hence sensor-shooter capability should be maximised.

5) That’s really shouldn’t be a problem. IIRC the upgraded SSTGs on the flight IIIs can each produce 4MW. With the 4 SSTGs planned in my notional “Burke-frigate”, that’s 16MW of power.

Not horrible. Then again, a major critique of the BIW submission was the major rework required to make it IEP and/or increase generating capacity so I wouldn’t underestimate the changes required.

Also aren’t the Burkes already equipped with extensive hull-quieting measures?

Maybe for the 1990s but today they are extremely loud and unfit for purpose. iirc testing with Zumwalt demonstrated just how advantageous a dedicated picket ship with modern quieting features was over Burke.

Also I thought the Burkes were constructed to level III? IIRC OPNAV 9070.1 explicitly listed DDGs as surface combatants that should be designed to level III standards

auiu the only ship in the fleet today built to Level III standards is Ford and even Ford has some waivers for certain areas

As have previously posted OpNavInst 9070.1 with Levels I, II & III is now history as superseded back in 2012 by OpNavInst 9070.1A after the LCS fiasco with no Levels specified, its whatever NAVSEA think appropriate at the time

auiu what is/was specified for Constellation aligns very closely with previous standards. I could be wrong, but that’s what I’ve been told

 

[Dragonlady]

All well and good but it’s very hard to cut down the more relevant capabilities (particularly sensors!) and still save cash. You could theoretically fit SPY-6(V)3 but that is a significant redesign, and then you end up with the Connie issue again.

If you put them in the same spot as the current SPY-1 arrays it shouldn’t take much effort at all. The (V)3 is half the size of SPY-1D and almost certainly significantly lighter. Software integration should already be a done deal via the flight III program.

Essentially yes, the open architecture design is comparable. More importantly AEGIS can handle BMD and, while this notional Burke variant (let’s call it DDV26) will have a smaller onboard magazine, future fleet magazine depth is predicted to be mostly handled by UxVs, hence sensor-shooter capability should be maximised.

Fair enough. Baseline 10 it is then.

Not horrible. Then again, a major critique of the BIW submission was the major rework required to make it IEP and/or increase generating capacity so I wouldn’t underestimate the changes required.

You’re talking about their FFG(X) submission right? Wasn’t that based on the F100?

Maybe for the 1990s but today they are extremely loud and unfit for purpose. iirc testing with Zumwalt demonstrated just how advantageous a dedicated picket ship with modern quieting features was over Burke.

Still leagues ahead of the NSC which has *zero* quieting features. Also, implementing a HED capability for the SSTGs would go a long way towards improving the acoustic signature.

While some amount of redesign will of course be needed, at the end of the day it would still be far less than what the USN stipulated for Constellation, or what would be needed to make the NSC into a proper frigate.

auiu the only ship in the fleet today built to Level III standards is Ford and even Ford has some waivers for certain areas

auiu what is/was specified for Constellation aligns very closely with previous standards. I could be wrong, but that’s what I’ve been told

Interesting. Kinda off-topic, but do you know where the Zumwalts fall into here? They were designed well after 9070.1 was published (but before 9070.1A) so one would think they were level III.

 

[EmoBirb]

So, it's a frigate that can't hunt submarines?

WTF is the point, then?

Maybe it's meant to engage such ferocious adversaries as the Canadian or Danish Navy in the near future? May not be up for the task of taking on even the PRC coast guard as it stands now, but should be able to deal with these potential adversaries (supported by Burkes, a couple SSNs, CVN, the whole nine yards).