FFG(X) - NEWS Only

johnpjones1775 said:
Sure, but let’s not pretend surface ships are great for ASW they’re not.
Click to expand...
Submarines are better at ASW sure except those cost more like twice a Burke and again are going to decrease in number with the LAs aging out, they also cannot keep up with a surface group and do decent ASW. The US is woefully short on ASW assets for its size.
 
Mallard said:
You’ve really got a thing against Spy panels, which part of a far smaller array do you not understand? A Spy 6 V3 is 3 arrays of 9 each! That’s not even as many as a single face on a flight 3 Burke
Click to expand...
Cool? They’re over kill for what we want these ships to do, and thus too expensive. SPY arrays are why the constellations were going to be over $1B each
 
Mallard said:
Submarines are better at ASW sure except those cost more like twice a Burke and again are going to decrease in number with the LAs aging out, they also cannot keep up with a surface group and do decent ASW. The US is woefully short on ASW assets for its size.
Click to expand...
Aircraft are better for ASW. An MH60R is better for ASW than a surface ship is.

We have a fleet of 90ish ASW capable destroyers, flat tops and LPDs that can all act as ASW helo carriers…we have more ASW capabilities than any other fleet in the world.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Sure, but let’s not pretend surface ships are great for ASW they’re not.

Where do you get they currently cost $1B?

They’re $600-700m
Click to expand...
Hardly a bargain even then, the T31 the UK is building, dysfunctional UK shipyards mind you is 300 million pounds for 57mm, 2 40mm a Thales NS110 4D radar and 12 CAMm VLS, already levels above NSC and there are far better versions by Poland and Indonesia with costs still under the NSC base price. How is NSC then good value for money?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Cool? They’re over kill for what we want these ships to do, and thus too expensive. SPY arrays are why the constellations were going to be over $1B each
Click to expand...
They’re not overkill they’re the bare minimum for modern air threats, you really want to send an NSC into the Chinese missile envelope?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Aircraft are better for ASW. An MH60R is better for ASW than a surface ship is.

We have a fleet of 90ish ASW capable destroyers, flat tops and LPDs that can all act as ASW helo carriers…we have more ASW capabilities than any other fleet in the world.
Click to expand...
Aircraft require ships, we’ll start with the Burkes, half don’t have a hangar, none of them have a VDS which is the latest sub hunting tech and none of the Diesel electric propulsion which is the preference for modern ASW.

And you want to use LHDs and LPDs for sub hunting? Giant targets more like.

And the carriers are far too large and cumbersome and simply not available enough to be dedicated to hunting submarines.
 
Mallard said:
Submarines are better at ASW sure except those cost more like twice a Burke and again are going to decrease in number with the LAs aging out, they also cannot keep up with a surface group and do decent ASW. The US is woefully short on ASW assets
Click to expand...
Mallard said:
Hardly a bargain even then, the T31 the UK is building, dysfunctional UK shipyards mind you is 300 million pounds for 57mm, 2 40mm a S300 radar and 12 CAMm VLS, already levels above NSC and there are far better versions by Poland and Indonesia with costs still under the NSC base price. How is NSC then good value for money?
Click to expand...
Cool, and if we built the type31 here it would probably end up costing $800-900m so what’s your point ?

I wouldn’t our own version of the type31, replace the 40s with either more mk110s or mk38 mod4s and CAAM farm with mk41. Sounds good to me, but that’s not what’s happening, and it’s a deflection.

The constellation class was too damn expensive to be the class of ships we needed them to be. For the price of a constellation we might as well just buy a burke.
 
Mallard said:
Aircraft require ships, we’ll start with the Burkes, half don’t have a hangar, none of them have a VDS which is the latest sub hunting tech and none of the Diesel electric propulsion which is the preference for modern ASW.

And you want to use LHDs and LPDs for sub hunting? Giant targets more like.

And the carriers are far too large and cumbersome and simply not available enough to be dedicated to hunting submarines.
Click to expand...
Half? Less than 1/3 don’t have hangars…21 out of a current 74 in service, and the ships themselves are still ASW capable…

You’ve been woefully wrong about numbers on things multiple times in very few posts, it’s really hard to take you serious when that happens.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Cool, and if we built the type31 here it would probably end up costing $800-900m so what’s your point ?

I wouldn’t our own version of the type31, replace the 40s with either more mk110s or mk38 mod4s and CAAM farm with mk41. Sounds good to me, but that’s not what’s happening, and it’s a deflection.

The constellation class was too damn expensive to be the class of ships we needed them to be. For the price of a constellation we might as well just buy a burke.
Click to expand...
Then the issue comes down to the US shipyard industry being incapable of keeping up with the modern demands of military shipbuilding rather than the designs of the ships themselves. Best suggestion is start ordering from overseas and focus on what the US can actually building like large warships and submarines as it’s clearly failing at small surface combatants.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Half? Less than 1/3 don’t have hangars…21 out of a current 74 in service, and the ships themselves are still ASW capable…

You’ve been woefully wrong about numbers on things multiple times in very few posts, it’s really hard to take you serious when that happens.
Click to expand...
You say that yet you’re wrong on your own post, the Flight 1 and 2 lack a hangar so that’s actually 28 out of 74.
 
Mallard said:
Aircraft require ships, we’ll start with the Burkes, half don’t have a hangar, none of them have a VDS which is the latest sub hunting tech and none of the Diesel electric propulsion which is the preference for modern ASW.

And you want to use LHDs and LPDs for sub hunting? Giant targets more like.

And the carriers are far too large and cumbersome and simply not available enough to be dedicated to hunting submarines.
Click to expand...
If an FF batch2 costs $800m and comes with 16 VLS, you can buy about two for the cost of a constellation, and 3 or 4 for the cost of a Burke.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
If an FF batch2 costs $800m and comes with 16 VLS, you can buy about two for the cost of a constellation, and 3 or 4 for the cost of a Burke.
Click to expand...
Do 2 ships meet the capability of a constellation, I would say no, just because 2 equals 32 VLS doesn’t mean they can afford to have the same diverse loadout. Beside the reduced radar capability and ASW capacity.

That’s before getting into the crewing situation which is only getting worse. You really thing the Navy will get twice the number of FFX as constellation were planned? Doubt they could crew that many.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
No the constellation class was not the minimum, it was a second rate Burke.

There’s plenty of corvettes smaller with less range and endurance than the legends that are just fine in all of those warfare areas.
Click to expand...
The only job of those corvettes is to stay close to home and launch ASM...
johnpjones1775 said:
You’re right and wrong.
The first batch, batch0 will basically be an NSC with containerized VLS, and some NSMs.
Bactch1+ will be built as a dedicated light frigate.
Batch0 are FFs batch1+ will be FFGs.
Click to expand...
The minimum standard for modern newly designed FFG is fixed (non-rotating) radars + hull silencing + 32 or more VLS cells + VDS + towed array. Even the latter FF(X) will not meet this standard

johnpjones1775 said:
Bro…the constellations were 3/4 the cost of a Burke…we wanted frigates as a cheaper alternative to burkes.

3/4 the price for 1/3 the VLS is stupid.

I’ll take 1/3 the price for 1/4 or so the VLS any day.
If we could manage 1/2 the price for 1/3 the VLS that would be almost ok.


We need ships that we can afford to build in large numbers, and in multiple shipyards. A 7300 ton frigate with a bunch SPY panels is not that ship.
Click to expand...
You know what's even stupider the more expensive than the FFG(X) for a crappy radar, minimal ASW capability, 1/2 the VLS cells.
johnpjones1775 said:
Sure, but let’s not pretend surface ships are great for ASW they’re not.

Where do you get they currently cost $1B?

They’re $600-700m
Click to expand...
Here you go. Inflation adjusted that's 1.02 billion or 1.2 billion if you look at the first hull. Now that the line has been dead for a couple years + modifications it's going to cost more than the current estimated FFG(X) price that the CBO and navy converged on, 1.2B.

We are still ordering 2x FFG(X) so the design will be fixed one way or the other. Once that happens just order more FFG(X). There's no need to buy the FF(X). Especially as it won't enter service earlier than the FFG(X), as they haven't even started requirements definitions let alone contract negotiation, design, and budget allocations. They might not even be able to start work on design changes until 2028 due to the budget cycle.

I don't understand why people keep on defending this useless piece of trash.

1767654293550.png
 
Last edited:
Mallard said:
Do 2 ships meet the capability of a constellation, I would say no, just because 2 equals 32 VLS doesn’t mean they can afford to have the same diverse loadout. Beside the reduced radar capability and ASW capacity.

That’s before getting into the crewing situation which is only getting worse. You really thing the Navy will get twice the number of FFX as constellation were planned? Doubt they could crew that many.
Click to expand...
And 2 ships can be in 2 places at once while 1 ship cannot.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
32 ESSM. That’s a lot more than an LCS, and perfectly capable of conducting local AAW operations for escort missions like the Red Sea.
Click to expand...

Except that Mk 70 is clearly not a quick-reaction launcher. It takes some time to elevate and make ready to fire. And you can't sail around with the tubes elevated all the time. At very least, they would need to be lowered for flight operations, and probably for many weather conditions.

That's why when they showed it off on LCS, it was described specifically as launcher for strike weapons, not self-defense.
 
TomS said:
Except that Mk 70 is clearly not a quick-reaction launcher. It takes some time to elevate and make ready to fire. And you can't sail around with the tubes elevated all the time. At very least, they would need to be lowered for flight operations, and probably for many weather conditions.

That's why when they showed it off on LCS, it was described specifically as launcher for strike weapons, not self-defense.
Click to expand...
On LCSes they were on the flight deck…so no duh you can’t do flight ops while operating them…but when exactly was the last time any navy was launching missiles and doing flight ops?
 
Mallard said:
So you’re down to swearing at people now are you? Or could you actually refer to the latest designs of alot of countries like France, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia and see their new fixed array radars even on lower end frigates.
Click to expand...
Oh I’m sorry? Did I offend your sensibilities?

Did you pull these standards out of your booty cheeks?

Edit
You mean like the french la Fayette class?
How about the Italian PPAs?
Both which utilize rotating radars?
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
On LCSes they were on the flight deck…so no duh you can’t do flight ops while operating them…but when exactly was the last time any navy was launching missiles and doing flight ops?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t change the point that it’s not a useful system for self defense with how long it takes to deploy
 
What do you guys think we need these ships for/to do?

The navy cannot escort MSC ships let alone civilian merchant ships during a peer or near peer war.

We need ships that can escort said ships. We are 2/3 of the way through our 90 Burke buy.

So we need 30-60 frigates that can escort said vessels, and maybe have a few left over to join a battle group or operate independently.

What we don’t need is a second rate DDG.
 
cccgong said:
You mean a ship designed in the 80s? I think that comment says everything we need to know about your naval knowledge.
Click to expand...
And when was the Burke designed? Updated flights are still the same basic design as the original Burke. And as I said, said when was the Burke designed? Is it not still the latest design to the point other nations are more less copying it?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
What do you guys think we need these ships for/to do?

The navy cannot escort MSC ships let alone civilian merchant ships during a peer or near peer war.

We need ships that can escort said ships. We are 2/3 of the way through our 90 Burke buy.

So we need 30-60 frigates that can escort said vessels, and maybe have a few left over to join a battle group or operate independently.

What we don’t need is a second rate DDG.
Click to expand...

The Navy isn’t going to be able to get 90
Burkes for very long before the oldest start rapidly retiring. It need a 2nd frontline combatant to make up numbers and that isn’t FFX
 
johnpjones1775 said:
And when was the Burke designed? Updated flights are still the same basic design as the original Burke. And as I said, said when was the Burke designed? Is it not still the latest design to the point other nations are more less copying it?
Click to expand...

Other navies are moving on from it. Korea and Japan have made a handful but both are designing larger and more capable vessels now
 
Mallard said:
The Navy isn’t going to be able to get 90
Burkes for very long before the oldest start rapidly retiring. It need a 2nd frontline combatant to make up numbers and that isn’t FFX
Click to expand...
That is probably going to be an ASW DD, like the Sprucans or Zumwalts.

Or whatever the Burke Replacement ends up being.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Oh I’m sorry? Did I offend your sensibilities?

Did you pull these standards out of your booty cheeks?

Edit
You mean like the french la Fayette class?
How about the Italian PPAs?
Both which utilize rotating radars?
Click to expand...

Bro PPA uses fixed arrays
 
johnpjones1775 said:
And when was the Burke designed? Updated flights are still the same basic design as the original Burke. And as I said, said when was the Burke designed? Is it not still the latest design to the point other nations are more less copying it?
Click to expand...
You mean the Lafayette who had their last ship commissioned in 2001? And you’re comparing it to one which was significantly redesigned in 2013 and was commissioned 2 years ago?

Other nations are not copying Burkes unless you can’t look beyond planer arrays are vls cells.

johnpjones1775 said:
What do you guys think we need these ships for/to do?

The navy cannot escort MSC ships let alone civilian merchant ships during a peer or near peer war.

We need ships that can escort said ships. We are 2/3 of the way through our 90 Burke buy.

So we need 30-60 frigates that can escort said vessels, and maybe have a few left over to join a battle group or operate independently.

What we don’t need is a second rate DDG.
Click to expand...
The threat has evolved such that we need at minimum a 2 ffgx to defend convoys east of Guam due to magazine size, ASW, and geometry.

The ffgx can’t even operate independently in a mid threat environment in an actual war.

I like how he's completely ignored some points I've made now.
 
Last edited:
Mallard said:
The Navy isn’t going to be able to get 90
Burkes for very long before the oldest start rapidly retiring. It need a 2nd frontline combatant to make up numbers and that isn’t FFX
Click to expand...
We have more burkes currently than just about any other navy has surface combatants total.
When (or there about) the burkes begin decomming we will have (hopefully) DDG(X) will be coming online.
And soon after that we’ll have battleships! /s
 
DWG said:
Zumwalt did have proper analysis done, but the problem was at an even higher level - (Forward) From the Sea was trying to find a job for the USN in a post-Cold War World and its conclusions are somewhat questionable, and became outdated post 9/11.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure they were all that wrong at the time.

Remember how out of the blue 9-11 was for most people.



DWG said:
Plus the budget to complete the class and its weapons was never there.
Click to expand...
Budget got eaten by the GWOT.



Mallard said:
No ASW DDG has been mentioned. DDGX was the plan but has been replaced by this ludicrous BBGX
Click to expand...
I suspect that the BBG is going to make a new-run DDGX happen. Production run of ~35ish (+-5) BBG, then the Burke Replacement being a different thing entirely.
 
cccgong said:
You mean the Lafayette who had their last ship commissioned in 2001? And you’re comparing it to one which was significantly redesigned in 2013 and was commissioned 2 years ago?

Other nations are not copying Burkes unless you can’t look beyond planer arrays are vls cells.


The threat has evolved such that we need at minimum a 2 ffgx to defend convoys east of Guam due to magazine size, ASW, and geometry.

The ffgx can’t even operate independently in a mid threat environment in an actual war.

I like how he's completely ignored some points I've made now.
Click to expand...
Bro…the sejong the great is a slightly enlarged copy of the Burke…are you for real? Then there’s the Kongo class, the Atago class, the maya class.
All are basically just Asian burkes.

And what data do you have that says the legend class frigates won’t be able to operate in a ‘mid threat’ environment (whatever that means)?
 
Last edited:
Wait, do they mean they want to build a batch of frigates that can't even perform anti-submarine duties?
 
cccgong said:
You mean the Lafayette who had their last ship commissioned in 2001? And you’re comparing it to one which was significantly redesigned in 2013 and was commissioned 2 years ago?

Other nations are not copying Burkes unless you can’t look beyond planer arrays are vls cells.


The threat has evolved such that we need at minimum a 2 ffgx to defend convoys east of Guam due to magazine size, ASW, and geometry.

The ffgx can’t even operate independently in a mid threat environment in an actual war.

I like how he's completely ignored some points I've made now.
Click to expand...
Fine how about the deagu and incheon class frigates then? Built starting in 2018 and 2012.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom