US FF(X) Program - DISCUSSION

[Mallard]

This is planned to be temporary

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

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?

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.

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.

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

It may be temporary providing no one decides to cancel any carriers but the gap isn’t exactly going to be filled quickly with the upcoming rate of Nimitz retirements

 

[Mallard]

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.

The fact the program is called FFX means even the USN aren’t confident this thing is ever going to be a FFG. What exactly will a Batch 2 and beyond be good for other than presence missions? Certainly not a frontline combatant or decent ASW ship.

 

[MadRat]

So according to you:

1) The US Navy and FMM blew the hangar present on the Bergamini's (the Italian ships support two Helis)
2) All that sound proofing hardware that the Italians (and French) threw at their FREMM's was deleted for the Constellation
3) An ungodly number of operators are wrong and instead of being an awful good bit of kit the Thales Captas 4 actually ... doesnt work

What are you talking about?

Cool story and interesting theory. FREMM was started in 2013 as an Air Defense frigate with relevant sonar for anticipated threats. It offered UMS 4110 CL, which is not sensitive enough to detect and track anticipated near peer adversaries. Great for fighting the Cold War, not so much against modern Chinese and Russian equipment, let alone an adversary that uses Western designs. A quick look at the more advanced Italian ASW version shows it was announced in 2023 for a future 2029 procurement. The USN will not buy that version when they can invest in a domestic option.

And being able to hold two helicopters does not mean two specialized ASW helicopters. The literature all points to room for but one ASW helicopter.

 

[Felocie]

Cool story and interesting theory. FREMM was started in 2013 as an Air Defense frigate with relevant sonar for anticipated threats. It offered UMS 4110 CL, which is not sensitive enough to detect and track anticipated near peer adversaries. Great for fighting the Cold War, not so much against modern Chinese and Russian equipment, let alone an adversary that uses Western designs. A quick look at the more advanced Italian ASW version shows it was announced in 2023 for a future 2029 procurement. The USN will not buy that version when they can invest in a domestic option.

And being able to hold two helicopters does not mean two specialized ASW helicopters. The literature all points to room for but one ASW helicopter.

Any mods want to clean this crap out of the thread?

 

[Kat Tsun]

What goals where those? When was this stated?
Mind you, the US Navy literaly deleted ASW capabilies (the hull mounted sonar) present in the Italian FREMM's by its own choice... And those Italian Ships are highly capable ASW assets.
Amusingly the US Navy ended with a new "Frigate" that is almost useless against Submarines.

Hull mounted sonars are not substantially relevant to ASW. They're pretty good for mine avoidance though. Towed arrays (like the CAPTAS 4) and helicopters are the primary ASW sensors, at least in the Pacific, but maybe the Mediterranean is noisy enough.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What goals where those? When was this stated?
Mind you, the US Navy literaly deleted ASW capabilies (the hull mounted sonar) present in the Italian FREMM's by its own choice... And those Italian Ships are highly capable ASW assets.
Amusingly the US Navy ended with a new "Frigate" that is almost useless against Submarines.

A hull mounted sonar is not necessarily needed for ASW work. A shallow towed array and a VDS work better most of the time. A hull sonar is more useful in the littorals, where there's not enough water depth to keep the shallow TA out of the mud.

And the Italian FREMMs currently in service are the AAW-specific variant, not the ASW-enhanced versions with better quieting and sonars that won't hit the water till about 2030.

Constellation would have been competent enough with a shallow towed array and a VDS.

 

[Mallard]

A hull mounted sonar is not necessarily needed for ASW work. A shallow towed array and a VDS work better most of the time. A hull sonar is more useful in the littorals, where there's not enough water depth to keep the shallow TA out of the mud.

And the Italian FREMMs currently in service are the AAW-specific variant, not the ASW-enhanced versions with better quieting and sonars that won't hit the water till about 2030.

Constellation would have been competent enough with a shallow towed array and a VDS.

The Italians have 6 going on 8 ASW variants in the water. The Fremm EVO are the reverse of what you’re saying, they’ll still have ASW capabilities but an enhanced radar suite.

 

[Sintra]

Cool story and interesting theory. FREMM was started in 2013 as an Air Defense frigate with relevant sonar for anticipated threats. It offered UMS 4110 CL, which is not sensitive enough to detect and track anticipated near peer adversaries. Great for fighting the Cold War, not so much against modern Chinese and Russian equipment, let alone an adversary that uses Western designs. A quick look at the more advanced Italian ASW version shows it was announced in 2023 for a future 2029 procurement. The USN will not buy that version when they can invest in a domestic option.

And being able to hold two helicopters does not mean two specialized ASW helicopters. The literature all points to room for but one ASW helicopter.

By parts:

1) The FREMM program didnt "start in 2013" (the first ship was comissioned in... 2012...).
2) The "Air Defense Frigate" program is/was Horizon/Orizzonti. You are mixing two very different ships/programs.
3) FREMM was designed with a very robust ASW mission set from the start.
4) UMS 4110 CL is the BOW mounted sonar that was designed for... Horizon (see point 2) and latter it was picked for the FREMM's, something that dont exist in a Constitution because they are designed without a BOW sonar.
5) Thales delivered the first Captas 4 for the Connies to FMM in February 2024
6) The main difference between a EVO and the two latest Bergamini's is in AAW, the EVO's will receive the new radars and anti drone systems that were developed for the PPA (Full config). The ASW bit will be identical.
7) On the hangar and two helicopters? Tell that to the Italian Navy and Fincantieri, recently the chaps have been presenting an awful lot of ppt's around Lisbon about the FREMM (by obvious reasons).

 

[Sintra]

And the Italian FREMMs currently in service are the AAW-specific variant, not the ASW-enhanced versions with better quieting and sonars that won't hit the water till about 2030.

1) The Italian Navy does not operate a "AAW-specific variant" of the FREMM. They operate GP (four ships) and ASW (six ships) variants
2) The first ASW "enhanced" (boat 9) was delivered to the Italian Navy in May this year, followed by the second (boat 10) that was delivered in July
3) The two new EVO's (the ones to be delivered in 2030) will use the exact ASW sensor suite used on the (already delivered) ASW "enhanced" boats, the main difference between the two being the AAW sensors (the EVO's will receive the same used on the PPA Full)

I am expecting that the first (or second) EVO boat will not be delivered to the Italian Navy at La Spezia but to Alfeite (the main Portuguese Naval Base).

Cheers

 

[Mallard]

1) The Italian Navy does not operate a "AAW-specific variant" of the FREMM. They operate GP (four ships) and ASW (six ships) variants
2) The first ASW "enhanced" (boat 9) was delivered to the Italian Navy in May this year, followed by the second (boat 10) that was delivered in July
3) The two new EVO's (the ones to be delivered in 2030) will use the exact ASW sensor suite used on the (already delivered) ASW "enhanced" boats, the main difference between the two being the AAW sensors (the EVO's will receive the same used on the PPA Full)

I am expecting that the first (or second) EVO boat will not be delivered to the Italian Navy La Spezia but to Alfeite (the main Portuguese Naval Base).

Cheers

Can the Portuguese afford Fremm EVO?

 

[Sintra]

Can the Portuguese afford Fremm EVO?

With 2% of GDP devoted to defense, yes, off course we can.
The choice of the new Frigates (in the end it was between the FDI and the EVO) should be official in the next few months.

 

[Jimmo952]

As limited as an NSC based frigate would be, it would be just the ticket for enforcing a blockaid like we are seeing off the coast of Venezuela.

It would be very useful in running down tankers and other ships attempting to evade the blockaid.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The fact the program is called FFX means even the USN aren’t confident this thing is ever going to be a FFG. What exactly will a Batch 2 and beyond be good for other than presence missions? Certainly not a frontline combatant or decent ASW ship.

Or they’re just trying to to avoid confusion, and because the first batch won’t have any organic missile capability.

 

[johnpjones1775]

As limited as an NSC based frigate would be, it would be just the ticket for enforcing a blockaid like we are seeing off the coast of Venezuela.

It would be very useful in running down tankers and other ships attempting to evade the blockaid.

Sure, but it would be better for escorting small convoys of ships. The basic CG NSC is already plenty enough for chasing down oil tankers.

 

[Reddington777]

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

Honestly - I think after this many pages of back and forth, I think we can safely say that none of us know why. The logic doesn't work out unless something truly unworkable plagues the design in some respect be it the actual design, the production cost, or production rate. The political reasons for this isn't strong enough for me to be the main (let alone sole) reason for this cancellation.

But to the point about ASW - why must we package all and every capability for every ship? Why not have ASW variants / payloads or Anti Air payloads? Then you could have multiple FFGs sailing together for missions.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Honestly - I think after this many pages of back and forth, I think we can safely say that none of us know why. The logic doesn't work out unless something truly unworkable plagues the design in some respect be it the actual design, the production cost, or production rate. The political reasons for this isn't strong enough for me to be the main (let alone sole) reason for this cancellation.

But to the point about ASW - why must we package all and every capability for every ship? Why not have ASW variants / payloads or Anti Air payloads? Then you could have multiple FFGs sailing together for missions.

Because ‘murica that’s why.

 

[Hydroman]

I think to move the program through more efficiently and to garner more support, should rename it FFG(XXX), all funding can be captured in the cloud-based g-sting, larger denomination bills of course. Must monitor the program closely, you do not want others to skim then be living in the lap dance of luxury while the program begins failing. I'm out, stage left!

 

[Seragina]

But to the point about ASW - why must we package all and every capability for every ship? Why not have ASW variants / payloads or Anti Air payloads? Then you could have multiple FFGs sailing together for missions.

We need mass and diversifying means introducing a priority target list to the emeny and make their life easier.
Ideally, it should be a "smalll" hull with a minimum of self defense that makes it hard to kill while maximiming the stored kill vs displacement for ASW and Anti-air alike. For the same reason manned ships should be numerous enough and very survivable to make exclusive targetting them less rewarding in gaining an advantage or shifting the local battle.

 

[Mallard]

Sure, but it would be better for escorting small convoys of ships. The basic CG NSC is already plenty enough for chasing down oil tankers.

The coast guard doesn’t have enough NSC though and one of them was cancelled due to terrible build quality

 

[Scott Kenny]

Honestly - I think after this many pages of back and forth, I think we can safely say that none of us know why. The logic doesn't work out unless something truly unworkable plagues the design in some respect be it the actual design, the production cost, or production rate. The political reasons for this isn't strong enough for me to be the main (let alone sole) reason for this cancellation.

You mean besides being 1000 tons overweight already?

Which means negative margin for growth. Not no margin for growth left. Negative margin. At least 500 tons beyond the design margins. Impacting safety and stability.

But to the point about ASW - why must we package all and every capability for every ship? Why not have ASW variants / payloads or Anti Air payloads? Then you could have multiple FFGs sailing together for missions.

Yes, we must.

Every ship must be capable of defending itself against air attack and submarines.

 

[johnpjones1775]

You mean besides being 1000 tons overweight already?

Which means negative margin for growth. Not no margin for growth left. Negative margin. At least 500 tons beyond the design margins. Impacting safety and stability.




Yes, we must.

Every ship must be capable of defending itself against air attack and submarines.

I think they mean to high degrees…

Does every ship really need a high end sonar system, and high end air defense radar and illuminators for the highest end missiles?

Or can some have just ‘good enough’

Just like we have top tier infantry in special warfare units, we have a middle tier that aren’t quite SPECWAR, and we have our regular infantry.
If we tried training and equipping every body to the same level as our operators we’d be broke, and our ground forces would be significantly smaller.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think they mean to high degrees…

Does every ship really need a high end sonar system, and high end air defense radar and illuminators for the highest end missiles?

Or can some have just ‘good enough’

Then you think we need lower end missiles and illuminators at all, instead of every ship using the same radars, illuminators, and missiles?

Which does give some notable SIGINT advantages. "I'm detecting SPY6" "Okay, who all has SPY6?" "US, Korea, Norway, ... [ad nauseam]"

And buying high end missiles for every ship means a significantly larger production run of those missiles, making them cheaper.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Then you think we need lower end missiles and illuminators at all, instead of every ship using the same radars, illuminators, and missiles?

Which does give some notable SIGINT advantages. "I'm detecting SPY6" "Okay, who all has SPY6?" "US, Korea, Norway, ... [ad nauseam]"

And buying high end missiles for every ship means a significantly larger production run of those missiles, making them cheaper.

Does that reduced cost make them cheap enough to be in the same ballpark as the lesser missiles?

Quick google of ESSM and SM-6 costs, and it sees like they’re already same ball park per VLS cell, so yeah I guess dropping the SM-6 cost 10-15% would make them cheaper to fill cells than ESSM.

But doing that seriously reduces magazine depth.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Then you think we need lower end missiles and illuminators at all, instead of every ship using the same radars, illuminators, and missiles?

Which does give some notable SIGINT advantages. "I'm detecting SPY6" "Okay, who all has SPY6?" "US, Korea, Norway, ... [ad nauseam]"

And buying high end missiles for every ship means a significantly larger production run of those missiles, making them cheaper.

Does that reduced cost make them cheap enough to be in the same ballpark as the lesser missiles?

Quick google of ESSM and SM-6 costs, and it sees like they’re already same ball park per VLS cell, so yeah I guess dropping the SM-6 cost 10-15% would make them cheaper to fill cells than ESSM.

But doing that seriously reduces magazine depth.
So on a smaller cheaper ship with fewer VLS I would say cutting your ammo count by 1/3 isn’t a great idea. The lower the VLS count the worse of an idea it is to decrease the number of cells with ESSM.

 

[Firefinder]

Well recent events show one thing the Legend class base FFX likely gets right.

Having the most fucking range in the fleet that's not a Nuke.

12k at 20k over to the Connie/Tico 6k at 20 knots or the Burkes 4.5k at 20 knots is nothing to sneeze at.

And PERSONALLY is a correction that is long in coming for the Navy. The Cole shows that, sure having many bases and Unrep ships is good...


But they can't be everywhere, are massive targets and an known data point to figure out where everything is...

Having the added range is a massive load off of that.


Without the OH God the Treasury Trying to Kill Me Price that is Nukes.

 

[Jimmo952]

Well recent events show one thing the Legend class base FFX likely gets right.

Having the most fucking range in the fleet that's not a Nuke.

12k at 20k over to the Connie/Tico 6k at 20 knots or the Burkes 4.5k at 20 knots is nothing to sneeze at.

And PERSONALLY is a correction that is long in coming for the Navy. The Cole shows that, sure having many bases and Unrep ships is good...


But they can't be everywhere, are massive targets and an known data point to figure out where everything is...

Having the added range is a massive load off of that.


Without the OH God the Treasury Trying to Kill Me Price that is Nukes.

Range, endurance, sea keeping and reliability. That is what NSC brings to the table day one.

Those are good things.

 

[Mallard]

Range, endurance, sea keeping and reliability. That is what NSC brings to the table day one.

Those are good things.

All well and good, but needs to be able to do something useful when it gets there.

 

[TomS]

Range, endurance, sea keeping and reliability. That is what NSC brings to the table day one.

Those are good things.

If it brought some warfighting capacity to go with them, it would be great. But we know from HII's public offerings of upgunned NSCs that a useful armament and sensor suite only fits that hull at the expense of range.

 

[Jimmo952]

If it brought some warfighting capacity to go with them, it would be great. But we know from HII's public offerings of upgunned NSCs that a useful armament and sensor suite only fits that hill at the expense of range.

Fair enough but even the vanilla NSCs are doing good work enforcing the Venezuelan blockade.

It's easy to see what they can't do but maybe more fruitful to contemplate things they will be able to do.

 

[PFJN]

Well recent events show one thing the Legend class base FFX likely gets right.

Having the most fucking range in the fleet that's not a Nuke.

12k at 20k over to the Connie/Tico 6k at 20 knots or the Burkes 4.5k at 20 knots is nothing to sneeze at.

And PERSONALLY is a correction that is long in coming for the Navy. The Cole shows that, sure having many bases and Unrep ships is good...


But they can't be everywhere, are massive targets and an known data point to figure out where everything is...

Having the added range is a massive load off of that.


Without the OH God the Treasury Trying to Kill Me Price that is Nukes.

Hi,
The NSC's range of 12,000nm isn't at 20kts. It is my understanding that it is at a lower speed (I think 14kts)

 

[CordyB]

Hi,
The NSC's range of 12,000nm isn't at 20kts. It is my understanding that it is at a lower speed (I think 14kts)

Chuck Hill who runs the CG Blog says the NSC can do 22 knots on its ~ 10,000 hp MTU V20 1163 diesels, though expect would marginally reduce max range.
In Jan 2016 GAO reporting on the NSC said " At the current average rate of four failed cylinder heads per cutter each year" due to problems caused with high heat and do not know if cylinder heat head problem was sorted.

Would note the European Navies using MTU diesels use the 11,000 hp 20V 8000 in their frigates e.g new French 4,500 t FDI/Amiral Ronarc'h class, it’s a more substantial engine as its dry weight is 52 tons whereas no doubt the less expensive MTU V20 1163 is only 24.5 tons dry weight as used in the NSC, the 1163 targeted for use in yachts.

 

[MihoshiK]

Chuck Hill who runs the CG Blog says the NSC can do 22 knots on its ~ 10,000 hp MTU V20 1163 diesels, though expect would marginally reduce max range.
In Jan 2016 GAO reporting on the NSC said " At the current average rate of four failed cylinder heads per cutter each year" due to problems caused with high heat and do not know if cylinder heat head problem was sorted.

Would note the European Navies using MTU diesels use the 11,000 hp 20V 8000 in their frigates e.g new French 4,500 t FDI/Amiral Ronarc'h class, it’s a more substantial engine as its dry weight is 52 tons whereas no doubt the less expensive MTU V20 1163 is only 24.5 tons dry weight as used in the NSC, the 1163 targeted for use in yachts.

MTU's yacht targeted series of engines are very much designed to run in cruise mode for the majority of their lives, with only the occasional full power bit of use.

If you use them at their full rating a lot it's no surprise they'll break down more often. It's not the designed use case.

 

[PFJN]

Hi,

From this GAO Report document it appears that the 12,000nm range for the NSC's was assumed at an average cruise speed of 12 kts.

Similarly, from this story on the HII proposed Frigate variants of the NSC design from 2012 it appears that while those designs were intended to have the same propulsion plant as the base NSC, and would be capable of 28+kts with the GT and both diesels online, 24kts on both diesels, or 18kts on a single diesel, their actual cruise speeds were intended to be in the 9-11kt range.

And finally, from this article on the NSC propulsion plant, appears to also confirm that the base NSC would be capable of 18kts on a single diesel or 28kts on the combine diesel and gas turbine plant.

As such, even if the ship's may be capable of at least 20+ kts on its diesels it does not appear that the 12,000nm range is available at those type speeds.

Regards

Pat

 

[MadRat]

The 9-11 knots parameters for an escort is pretty normal.

Slow and steady wins the race.

 

[H_K]

NSC’s max fuel consumption on 1 diesel is 488 gph, and on 2 diesels is ~960 gph. Let’s assume the sustained rating is ~80% so ~390gph on 1 diesel and ~770gph on diesels, with respective speeds of 17kts and 22kts.

Fuel capacity is 225,000 gallons so ~215,000gal usable (95%). Add ~60gph for ~1MWe of average electrical hotel load, so your cruise consumption and range will be

450gph @ 17 knots -> ~8,100nm
830gph @ 22 knots -> ~5,700nm

You could adjust these using the cubic rule to get ranges at 15kts and 20kts:

270+60=330gph @ 15 knots -> 9,800nm
580+60=640gph @ 20 knots -> 6,700nm

 

[Felocie]

The 9-11 knots parameters for an escort is pretty normal.

Slow and steady wins the race.

For escorting what??

 

[Scott Kenny]

The 9-11 knots parameters for an escort is pretty normal.

Slow and steady wins the race.

What merchant ships still move that slowly?

 

[Seragina]

Actually, 80 years ago the average convoi speed was 7-10 kn. Commercial ships that couldn't do 10 kn had to join the "slow" convoi. Ships that do 10-15 kn joined the "fast" convoi. Faster ships were free to go alone. Naturally, escorts had to be able to overtake their convoi in order to rejoin it.... though some needed a day to return.
Today speed requirement for (habor) escort tugs is 8-10.

What merchant ships still move that slowly?

There are 50+ year old ships still in operation in Russia for example. I wouldn't try to probe the hull's strength with a pencil, though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Actually, 80 years ago the average convoi speed was 7-10 kn. Commercial ships that couldn't do 10 kn had to join the "slow" convoi. Ships that do 10-15 kn joined the "fast" convoi. Faster ships were free to go alone. Naturally, escorts had to be able to overtake their convoi in order to rejoin it.... though some needed a day to return.
Today speed requirement for (habor) escort tugs is 8-10.

There are 50+ year old ships still in operation in Russia for example. I wouldn't try to probe the hull's strength with a pencil, though.

There are in the US and Canada, too, but they do 14-15knots.

The Great Lakes freighters. Edmund Fitzgerald the most famous example.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Cargo ships generally cruise between 14 and 22 knots. Bulkers and tankers are generally at the slow end at 14 - 16 knots and container ships are usually at 18 - 22 knots. If ships are convoying with an escort, they will go as fast as the slowest ship, which hopefully isn't an escort that needs to slow down to get enough range, but higher speed would make a transit through contested waters safer for several reasons. The Navy's LMSR ships can cruise at 22 - 24 knots and the FSS ships were designed to make trans-oceanic passages at 30 knots. If we're thinking about POS combatants, most militarily useful shipping can sustain at least 18 knots so 20 knots is a good target cruising speed.