US FF(X) Program - DISCUSSION

[johnpjones1775]

I'm skeptical we will even get 16 VLS on NSC. That ship should be canceled, but you seem wed to it.

You've ignored posts by Ainen and Mallard, also re-reading his post it can only provide fire control in a ~100 degree arc which is even more limiting. Have those WEPs used in high threat exercises or just detecting aircraft at range.

Again there will not be enough block 2 ESSM production for 20+ FF(X) to all have 50+ ESSM each in addition to other vessels and allied commitments.

Well if larger ships have illuminators or more of them, prioritize block 1 for those.

How many block 2s are produced each year?

Google is showing 500 have already been produced as of October of last year with production ramping up to double output in 2026.

64x20=1,280 so if we double the output this year we should be very close to having enough block 2s for each legend by the time batch 2 frigates are commissioning.

 

[Felocie]

Eh, I think that's a lesser problem compared to the major issue: FF(X) fills a niche that doesn't need filling and doesn't do anything particularly well using both a capability per dollar metric and a comparative analysis to ships of similar role and size.
ack them with missiles all you want, the ships will never be enough to fulfill navy missions

 

[MadRat]

Eh, I think that's a lesser problem compared to the major issue: FF(X) fills a niche that doesn't need filling and doesn't do anything particularly well using both a capability per dollar metric and a comparative analysis to ships of similar role and size.
ack them with missiles all you want, the ships will never be enough to fulfill navy missions

Your opinion which is not shared by leadership. So far you have not articulated a very persuasive argument.

 

[Felocie]

Your opinion which is not shared by leadership. So far you have not articulated a very persuasive argument.

My opinion is not shared by the Trump administration yet is formed on the back of US Navy planning and is most pertinently formed by the 30 year shipbuilding plan which does not account for an FF(X) type platform. The Trump administration has also canned DDG(X) and FFG(X) with no replacements in favor of a so called battleship which will likely not hit the water before 2039 and FF(X). All indications suggest NAVSEA (the guys meant to plan future fleet architectures) were not consulted on these programs and have not advocated for them.
Further, aren't you the same guy who tried to say Connie couldn't do effective ASW? I would pipe down if I were you champ, your opinion is worth a 3 dollar bill.

And further, if that is what you truly believe, then justify the position of FF(X) in the US fleet for me.

 

[johnpjones1775]

My opinion is not shared by the Trump administration yet is formed on the back of US Navy planning and is most pertinently formed by the 30 year shipbuilding plan which does not account for an FF(X) type platform. The Trump administration has also canned DDG(X) and FFG(X) with no replacements in favor of a so called battleship which will likely not hit the water before 2039 and FF(X). All indications suggest NAVSEA (the guys meant to plan future fleet architectures) were not consulted on these programs and have not advocated for them.
Further, aren't you the same guy who tried to say Connie couldn't do effective ASW? I would pipe down if I were you champ, your opinion is worth a 3 dollar bill.

And further, if that is what you truly believe, then justify the position of FF(X) in the US fleet for me.

Stop saying the DDGX program has been canned.
This is false. As of the beginning of this month we literally had a report in Congress stating our intent to procure the first DDGX in the 2030s

https://news.usni.org/2026/01/01/report-to-congress-on-bbgx-battleship-program

 

[cccgong]

Your opinion which is not shared by leadership. So far you have not articulated a very persuasive argument.

The only person who has said that is Phelan who has no naval or engineering background also gave this very incorrect quote justifying the FF(X). So I'm very unconvinced of his qualifications.

Secretary of the Navy John Phelan stated that “the Constellation-class frigate was canceled because, candidly, it didn’t make sense anymore to build it. It was 80 percent of the cost of a [larger DDG-51 class] destroyer and 60 percent of the capability. You might as well build destroyers.”
When it's more like 45% the cost of a AB.

Well if larger ships have illuminators or more of them, prioritize block 1 for those.

How many block 2s are produced each year?

Google is showing 500 have already been produced as of October of last year with production ramping up to double output in 2026.

64x20=1,280 so if we double the output this year we should be very close to having enough block 2s for each legend by the time batch 2 frigates are commissioning.

So no other ships are getting block II's nor any other allied partner who has already purchased them? Notice this all discretionary funding too, so it could be cut for BBG(X) for all we know or eliminated due to another government shutdown.

He was involved in missile detection and interception exercises if that’s what you mean by ‘high threat exercises’
He was also an instructor for LCS officers and basically wrote the doctrine for LCS self defense.

The LCS has no missile interception capability other than wait for their SeaRam to turn on automatically and engage the incoming or use 3P ammo 57mm (I'm unsure if the LCS has it). Unless he has comparisons to other radars detection thresholds that's not very useful.

Stop saying the DDGX program has been canned.
This is false. As of the beginning of this month we literally had a report in Congress stating our intent to procure the first DDGX in the 2030s

https://news.usni.org/2026/01/01/report-to-congress-on-bbgx-battleship-program

And yet in the annoucment of the BBG(X) it says the DDG(X) is canned.

https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stori...6952/trump-announces-new-class-of-battleship/

 

[Felocie]

Stop saying the DDGX program has been canned.
This is false. As of the beginning of this month we literally had a report in Congress stating our intent to procure the first DDGX in the 2030s

https://news.usni.org/2026/01/01/report-to-congress-on-bbgx-battleship-program

Fair criticism, I will revise it. The Trump administration wants to can DDG(X) but there is widespread confusion as to what this actually looks like

 

[johnpjones1775]

The only person who has said that is Phelan who has no naval or engineering background also gave this very incorrect quote justifying the FF(X). So I'm very unconvinced of his qualifications.

Secretary of the Navy John Phelan stated that “the Constellation-class frigate was canceled because, candidly, it didn’t make sense anymore to build it. It was 80 percent of the cost of a [larger DDG-51 class] destroyer and 60 percent of the capability. You might as well build destroyers.”
When it's more like 45% the cost of a AB.


So no other ships are getting block II's nor any other allied partner who has already purchased them? Notice this all discretionary funding too, so it could be cut for BBG(X) for all we know or eliminated due to another government shutdown.

View attachment 798329


The LCS has no missile interception capability other than wait for their SeaRam to turn on automatically and engage the incoming or use 3P ammo 57mm (I'm unsure if the LCS has it). Unless he has comparisons to other radars detection thresholds that's not very useful.


And yet in the annoucment of the BBG(X) it says the DDG(X) is canned.

https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stori...6952/trump-announces-new-class-of-battleship/

The mk110 is the primary AAW weapon, the SEARAM software makes it operate in a very stupid manner.

I don’t care what trump says. Trump is fucking moron who never knows what he’s talking about. Trump also said we’d be getting DOGE checks. Then he said we’d be getting tariff checks. Trump says a lot of things will happen that don’t happen.

So until this an actual cancellation and not just trump talking out his ass it’s still on, because trump doesn’t have the authority to cancel a program that’s been written into law via funding bills

 

[Maskoki]

How does this refute the notion that FF(X) is built for operations that do not exist? Convoy operations to Taiwan and the Philippines cannot be supported by FF(X) and convoy operations such as those from CONUS to Australia would lead to slower logistics in areas China cannot effectively contest

It doesn’t refute anything. I agree with you and pretty much everyone that the FFX is throwing $ at zero incremental capability.

I’m saying that Congress should: Amplify expectation that the Navy build 3x SSNs/year, demand that the Navy design a clean-sheet FFG & build at least 3x FFG/year, and if we must build something based on the NSC (after a small handful of FFX to keep the yard busy), $ must be poured into quietening and the Navy needs to add towed sonars and VLS - and I would call this NSC derivative a KKG (corvette), which would probably execute ASW between the west coast and Guam so that the SSNs & FFGs can focus west of Guam. All three (SSN, FFG, & KKG), if designed/built in numbers made possible by a cold-war-sized infrastructure push now, might have a hope of putting enough sonars in the water to counter the PLAN SSK & SSN threat that China will mass-produce over the next decade.

 

[cccgong]

It doesn’t refute anything. I agree with you and pretty much everyone that the FFX is throwing $ at zero incremental capability.

I’m saying that Congress should: Amplify expectation that the Navy build 3x SSNs/year, demand that the Navy design a clean-sheet FFG & build at least 3x FFG/year, and if we must build something based on the NSC (after a small handful of FFX to keep the yard busy), $ must be poured into quietening and the Navy needs to add towed sonars and VLS - and I would call this NSC derivative a KKG (corvette), which would probably execute ASW between the west coast and Guam so that the SSNs & FFGs can focus west of Guam. All three (SSN, FFG, & KKG), if designed/built in numbers made possible by a cold-war-sized infrastructure push now, might have a hope of putting enough sonars in the water to counter the PLAN SSK & SSN threat that China will mass-produce over the next decade.

It seems that you agree, but just to reiterate.

I'm already skeptical that a new build NSC with 0 modification will enter the water more than 1 year faster than the FFG(X). Adding all the redesign work will ensure that it will not finish before the FFG(X) while being just as if not more expensive. Also there's no need for FF(X) to keep shipyards busy, as it'll be built at HII which is already very busy with other programs. So there's no reason for it to exist.

If anything we need another program for FMM which can be solved by restoring the original order of FFG(X) or buying MMSC.

 

[Felocie]

If they actually want to fill and expand the surface warfare role (despite the questionable need), FMM could build more Freedom class littoral combat ships which offer greater capability at a lesser cost and which by now we would hope they could do properly. They could probably even incorporate an 8 or 16 cell for ARH missiles with minimal change to the base platform given it has been studied through various means a million times at this point

 

[MadRat]

If they actually want to fill and expand the surface warfare role (despite the questionable need), FMM could build more Freedom class littoral combat ships which offer greater capability at a lesser cost and which by now we would hope they could do properly. They could probably even incorporate an 8 or 16 cell for ARH missiles with minimal change to the base platform given it has been studied through various means a million times at this point

3500nm range at 14 knots? Better yet, 1000nm at 40 knots... Not very compelling the projecting in either the presence or endurance categories. Guess you missed the L in the LCS name.

So far you've presented ad hominem and criticism of everything not your idea. But you literally have no real solutions. Practice your own advice.

 

[cccgong]

3500nm range at 14 knots? Better yet, 1000nm at 40 knots... Not very compelling the projecting in either the presence or endurance categories. Guess you missed the L in the LCS name.

So far you've presented ad hominem and criticism of everything not your idea. But you literally have no real solutions. Practice your own advice.

The MMSC has 5000nm range which would work if it bases out of Hawaii, but only to Japan. It would need a refuel somewhere if it was to do Taiwan, Aus, or the Phillipines.

 

[Felocie]

3500nm range at 14 knots? Better yet, 1000nm at 40 knots... Not very compelling the projecting in either the presence or endurance categories. Guess you missed the L in the LCS name.

Again, FF(X) does not fill a legitimate role envisioned for the US Navy. The closest real role it could fill is the surface warfare role which is currently covered by the Freedom class LCS. This is because it lacks any ASW weapons and sensors. When compared to the Freedom, it is inferior both in cost and capability.

Once again I reiterate, if you see a role for FF(X) that somehow everyone else is missing I encourage you to then justify the role of FF(X) in the US fleet.

 

[Felocie]

The MMSC has 5000nm range which would work if it bases out of Hawaii, but only to Japan. It would need a refuel somewhere if it was to do Taiwan, Aus, or the Phillipines.

It would make much more sense as a vessel for theatres that are not in direct conflict with China so that large surface combatants can be drawn to the primary theatre and international obligations can be maintained. It would not make sense as a convoy escort or a Pacific combatant but neither does FF(X). This makes range a lesser concern over pure combat capability

 

[Scott Kenny]

And I don’t know how you resupply Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, or our island bases without escorting support, logistics, or merchant ships through submarine-infested water…

By the cargo ships doing more than 15 knots.

Very difficult for a sub to get ahead of the targets when they're going faster than you can go at PD (and frankly you'd be showing massive wake at that speed). Dive deep and get ahead of them? You're going to be deaf for a short time while you sprint.

And if the cargo targets are doing 20 knots, the subs are completely screwed.

Scatter and run for it, skimmer targets!

Stop saying the DDGX program has been canned.
This is false. As of the beginning of this month we literally had a report in Congress stating our intent to procure the first DDGX in the 2030s

https://news.usni.org/2026/01/01/report-to-congress-on-bbgx-battleship-program

The Battleship announcement said that it was replacing the DDGX program.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Cite a source DDGX doesn’t exist anymore as it was referenced as being procured in the 2030s in a congressional report this month

DOW/DOD will probably get a stop work order at some point. That CRO was broadly written last year and is already outdated. If Congress can pass a budget, for once in its life, it might be able to save DDG(X) but that's pretty outlandish.

16 VLS is the maximum we’re getting on the NSC hull, so that’s what the USN will have to work with.

That's more than enough if you give it a few Mk 141s. That's 32 ESSM, 8 Harpoons, and 8 VLAs, plus a 3-in. More than a Perry had.

If it's a tiny ship, solely to retask Burkes from EUCOM or AFRICOM to INDOPACCOM, it won't be bad at all.

By the cargo ships doing more than 15 knots.

Very difficult for a sub to get ahead of the targets when they're going faster than you can go at PD (and frankly you'd be showing massive wake at that speed). Dive deep and get ahead of them? You're going to be deaf for a short time while you sprint.

And if the cargo targets are doing 20 knots, the subs are completely screwed.

Just replace all the Earth's saltwater with ethanol, to reduce flow noise at speed and regain the advantage, duh.

I believe SecWar refers to this as "lethality enhancement".

I call it a tasty beverage.

 

[Mallard]

[/QUOTE]

DOW/DOD will probably get a stop work order at some point. That CRO was broadly written last year and is already outdated. If Congress can pass a budget, for once in its life, it might be able to save DDG(X) but that's pretty outlandish.



That's more than enough if you give it a few Mk 141s. That's 32 ESSM, 8 Harpoons, and 8 VLAs, plus a 3-in. More than a Perry had.

If it's a tiny ship, solely to retask Burkes from EUCOM or AFRICOM to INDOPACCOM, it won't be bad at all.



Just replace all the Earth's saltwater with ethanol, to reduce flow noise at speed and regain the advantage, duh.

I believe SecWar refers to this as "lethality enhancement".

I call it a tasty beverage.

The Red Sea required ships armed with SM2 and above for effective escort of merchants, that doesn’t really free up Burkes.

 

[CordyB]

By the cargo ships doing more than 15 knots.

Very difficult for a sub to get ahead of the targets when they're going faster than you can go at PD (and frankly you'd be showing massive wake at that speed). Dive deep and get ahead of them? You're going to be deaf for a short time while you sprint.

And if the cargo targets are doing 20 knots, the subs are completely screwed.

Scatter and run for it, skimmer targets

Would not the new generation of very quiet Chinese Type 039A/B/C diesel electric AIP subs just wait at choke points or off harbors to ambush the convoys, sonar has difficulties operating in the confused and noisy littoral waters.

The DOT&E report on the LWT Mk54 testing I saw was not very complimentary and did see a report that during the Falklands War the RN dropped 50 Mk 46 LWT plus 14 Limbo mortar bombs with zero success over a month against the single Argentine submarine ARA San Luis (German TKMS Type 209) which survived.

Also note the FFX appears to have very limited ASW capabilities, just the helo, no sonar nor a quiet hull or propulsion system, diesels not mounted on double-resilient "raft" mountings or enclosed in a acoustic enclosures and the diesels not placed above waterline to minimize transmission of noise and any vibrations in the sea, not hybrid with quiet electric motors for propulsion, rather than being mechanically coupled to the propeller via a noisy gearbox etc

 

[Scott Kenny]

Would not the new generation of very quiet Chinese Type 039A/B/C diesel electric AIP subs just wait at choke points or off harbors to ambush the convoys, sonar has difficulties operating in the confused and noisy littoral waters.

That's what they would have to do.

But it also means that the USN knows where they'll be hiding.

 

[johnpjones1775]

By the cargo ships doing more than 15 knots.

Very difficult for a sub to get ahead of the targets when they're going faster than you can go at PD (and frankly you'd be showing massive wake at that speed). Dive deep and get ahead of them? You're going to be deaf for a short time while you sprint.

And if the cargo targets are doing 20 knots, the subs are completely screwed.

Scatter and run for it, skimmer targets!




The Battleship announcement said that it was replacing the DDGX program.

And no one involved in that announcement has the authority to cancel congressionally mandated spending meaning they don’t have that authority, and that’s even assuming it wasn’t some random intern who wrote the announcement, got skimmed by someone a little higher up and then approved.
But the announcement was in December, that congressional report is from January. It is the most recent news on the subject.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The Red Sea required ships armed with SM2 and above for effective escort of merchants, that doesn’t really free up Burkes.

Why would you escort anything in the Red Sea if you're fighting a war in Taiwan lol.

The point is to have ships on standby in AFRICOM or EUCOM or CENTCOM to do things like fire Tomahawks, or maybe shoot down a cruise missile for an escort playing a part in a EUNAVFOR led operation, duh. The U.S. simply isn't going to have any serious presence outside of INDOPACCOM if there's a fight over Taiwan.

That's all it can do. 90 Burkes and 8-9 carriers is just enough to beat the PLAN and maybe protect the U.S. coasts afterward. But if you have 10 or 20 FF(X)/FFG(X), those 90 or so Burkes aren't going to be drained completely. You'll still have some combat power in other COCOMs, even if it's meager, like the French deployments to Asia/New Caledonia.

And no one involved in that announcement has the authority to cancel congressionally mandated spending meaning they don’t have that authority, and that’s even assuming it wasn’t some random intern who wrote the announcement, got skimmed by someone a little higher up and then approved.
But the announcement was in December, that congressional report is from January. It is the most recent news on the subject.

The BBG(X) at the moment is a proposal, yes, and it's not actually funded yet, yes. It will likely be approved unless Congress decides to wear its pants again and go against the President. This would be very smart going into midterms with a tailwind for the GOP.

They're going to just approve the big dumb boat, to try to uphold their troika in the House, because it's dumb not to do that.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The Red Sea required ships armed with SM2 and above for effective escort of merchants, that doesn’t really free up Burkes.
[/QUOTE]
No it didn’t because the US wasn’t doing any escorts.
US ships were steaming in circles in predesignated boxes. That’s why they needed SM2 and longer range missiles to protect merchants. There was never a US escort mission in there’d sea.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Why would you escort anything in the Red Sea if you're fighting a war in Taiwan lol.

The point is to have ships on standby in AFRICOM or EUCOM or CENTCOM to do things like fire Tomahawks, or maybe shoot down a cruise missile for an escort playing a part in a EUNAVFOR led operation, duh. The U.S. simply isn't going to have any serious presence outside of INDOPACCOM if there's a fight over Taiwan.

That's all it can do. 90 Burkes and 8-9 carriers is just enough to beat the PLAN and maybe protect the U.S. coasts afterward. But if you have 10 or 20 FF(X)/FFG(X), those 90 or so Burkes aren't going to be drained completely. You'll still have some combat power in other COCOMs, even if it's meager, like the French deployments to Asia/New Caledonia.

Because the Red Sea or SOH or any other place could pop off at any moment taking advantage of the US being distracted.

But they’re lying/misinformed.
The USN never did any escort missions in the Red Sea for merchant shipping.

US ships steamed in circles in predesignated boxes, and launched intercepts from those boxes. That’s why SM2 and longer ranged missiles were necessary for that mission.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Because the Red Sea or SOH or any other place could pop off at any moment taking advantage of the US being distracted.

But they’re lying/misinformed.
The USN never did any escort missions in the Red Sea for merchant shipping.

US ships steamed in circles in predesignated boxes, and launched intercepts from those boxes. That’s why SM2 and longer ranged missiles were necessary for that mission.

Fr the FFG(X) would be pulling close escort for the Aster/PAAMS zone air defense unit and maybe providing LAMPS targeting data to PAAMS.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Why would you escort anything in the Red Sea if you're fighting a war in Taiwan lol.

The point is to have ships on standby in AFRICOM or EUCOM or CENTCOM to do things like fire Tomahawks, or maybe shoot down a cruise missile for an escort playing a part in a EUNAVFOR led operation, duh. The U.S. simply isn't going to have any serious presence outside of INDOPACCOM if there's a fight over Taiwan.

That's all it can do. 90 Burkes and 8-9 carriers is just enough to beat the PLAN and maybe protect the U.S. coasts afterward. But if you have 10 or 20 FF(X)/FFG(X), those 90 or so Burkes aren't going to be drained completely. You'll still have some combat power in other COCOMs, even if it's meager, like the French deployments to Asia/New Caledonia.



The BBG(X) at the moment is a proposal, yes, and it's not actually funded yet, yes. It will likely be approved unless Congress decides to wear its pants again and go against the President. This would be very smart going into midterms with a tailwind for the GOP.

They're going to just approve the big dumb boat, to try to uphold their troika in the House, because it's dumb not to do that.

Not too get too off topic with politics here, there’s a lot pushback against POTUS from republicans right now. I don’t think this is getting any real funding beyond a few million dollars for a group of dudes to sit around in a room and talk about it.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Not too get too off topic with politics here, there’s a lot pushback against POTUS from republicans right now. I don’t think this is getting any real funding beyond a few million dollars for a group of dudes to sit around in a room and talk about it.

Hopefully it doesn't disrupt DDG(X) yeah.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Hopefully it doesn't disrupt DDG(X) yeah.

I doubt it will, and if it does it will probably be only for a year or so.
This administration is very unpopular right now, and likely to get even more unpopular in the coming months.
Republicans will either have to stand up to him now or there will be no way to whitewash their complicity with the administration to get the independent votes necessary for most republicans to stay in office next year.

 

[MrTopaz]

Q, bent over a console in Engineering on the Enterpise D:

Just replace all the Earth's saltwater with ethanol, to reduce flow noise at speed and regain the advantage, duh.

 

[Felocie]

did see a report that during the Falklands War the RN dropped 50 Mk 46 LWT plus 14 Limbo mortar bombs with zero success over a month against the single Argentine submarine ARA San Luis (German TKMS Type 209) which survived.

Are you seriously citing the Falklands War as a source for the capability of weapons systems in 2025? That’s laughable

 

[johnpjones1775]

Are you seriously citing the Falklands War as a source for the capability of weapons systems in 2025? That’s laughable

I will take real world data that 50 years old over imaginary data, and tests under ideal conditions.

 

[Felocie]

I will take real world data that 50 years old over imaginary data, and tests under ideal conditions.

They aren’t even the same torpedos… are you good?

 

[johnpjones1775]

They aren’t even the same torpedos… are you good?

Great, my point is that without more modern real world data, anyone can say anything.

Look at how shitty Russian and Chinese air defenses turned out to be by comparison to western.

Until the Ukraine war, red sea, Iran strikes and now the Venezuela attack, we all had to assume that we were all on par with each other.
Now we know otherwise

 

[cccgong]

Great, my point is that without more modern real world data, anyone can say anything.

Look at how shitty Russian and Chinese air defenses turned out to be by comparison to western.

Until the Ukraine war, red sea, Iran strikes and now the Venezuela attack, we all had to assume that we were all on par with each other.
Now we know otherwise

So you mean radars that aren't turned on aren't going to be useful? And the F35 and B2 defeat the exact decades old air defense they were designed to defeat? You also mean the same air defenses that keep both the Russians an Ukrainian from doing much of anything with their airforces?

You should not bring up 45 year old scenarios. There's much of anything that's still applicable from the Falklands.

Also the MK110 is not AD it's is basically a CIWS.

 

[johnpjones1775]

So you mean radars that aren't turned on aren't going to be useful? And the F35 and B2 defeat the exact decades old air defense they were designed to defeat? You also mean the same air defenses that keep both the Russians an Ukrainian from doing much of anything with their airforces?

You should not bring up 45 year old scenarios. There's much of anything that's still applicable from the Falklands.

Also the MK110 is not an is basically a CIWS.

I’m telling you how the USN does its defense doctrine for LCSes.
On paper the mk110 and SEARAM have similar ranges, in the real world mk110 will be used to engage earlier and at greater distance.

Wait are you claiming both Iran and Venezuela didn’t have their radars on?

Ukraine’s Air Force is tiny so losing a single plane to air to air combat or to subpar ground defenses has a bigger effect forcing Ukraine to operate more cautiously, and until Ukraine started receive decent numbers of western air defenses and western jests the Russian Air Force was only moderately impeded.

 

[Felocie]

we all had to assume that we were all on par with each other.

No “we” didn’t and to claim as such is an indictment on you. Secondly, Venezuelan air defences weren’t even turned on so I fail to see what “proof” we have of Chinese air defences failings.

But hey, why stop at the Falklands? We have plenty of WW2 battle reports on American torpedoes. After all battle testing is more important than tests of the actual weapons system in question.

And NONE of this addresses the thread topic which is FF(X). Even more pertinently to the broader conversation, none of it addresses the role of FF(X) in the broader US fleet and the capabilities it brings to the table.

 

[Scott Kenny]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011204905424368088

View: https://x.com/__cjohnston__/status/2011204905424368088?s=46&t=5THFve96Abhx7VANdlTzrg

Based on that picture, it looks like 12x APMs, so 36x CPS missiles or 72-84x Tomahawks (not clear whether APMs get the 6-round VPM inserts or the 7-round Trident SSGN inserts). Or some mix thereof, obviously. What wouldn't surprise me would be 6x with CPS and 6x with Tomahawks, ~18x CPS and 36-42x Tomahawks.

It's also still possible to have, say, 40x Mk57 PVLS cells around the outside of the helo deck, and/or a midships Mk41 array. My preference would be both, of course.

If you're keeping Tomahawks out of the Mk41/Mk57s, you only need about 96 cells for AAW to equal a Tico's AAW loadout.

 

[johnpjones1775]

No “we” didn’t and to claim as such is an indictment on you. Secondly, Venezuelan air defences weren’t even turned on so I fail to see what “proof” we have of Chinese air defences failings.

But hey, why stop at the Falklands? We have plenty of WW2 battle reports on American torpedoes. After all battle testing is more important than tests of the actual weapons system in question.

And NONE of this addresses the thread topic which is FF(X). Even more pertinently to the broader conversation, none of it addresses the role of FF(X) in the broader US fleet and the capabilities it brings to the table.

Where did you get that Venezuela’s defenses weren’t on exactly?

As for what the legend frigate will provide it’s been discussed multiple times, you just seem to be ignoring that

 

[Felocie]

Where did you get that Venezuela’s defenses weren’t on exactly?

Not only were they not on, according to very reputable OSINT collators, sat imagery proves their best systems were moved a day beforehand (likely because they had been on constant duty for months at that point and needed maintenance). iirc the active system was a Buk which was destroyed inside a Venezuelan airbase in Caracas

As for what the legend frigate will provide it’s been discussed multiple times, you just seem to be ignoring that

Yeah, and the realistic conclusions reached have been that FF(X) is useless given that:
A) convoy warfare of the type needed in the Pacific has no relevance to a ship with 0 VLS and 0 ASW sensors
B) it is more expensive than a Freedom class LCS while still having a substantially lesser surface warfare capability, and that's before we consider that the USN considers the surface warfare role filled by existing ships

It's a cheap ship

It's not cheap, even when compared to other classes of comparable capability

It probably should have been bought 20 years ago instead of the LCS.

The fact NSC was developed in parallel with LCS and were openly discussed as units to complement each other notwithstanding, LCS has actually, finally, found a role in the US Fleet which FF(X) does not fill.

What FF(X) actually presents is more expensive than Freedom while having a larger RCS, less tactical mobility, and a lesser surface warfare capability.

If the actual intention is to free up Burkes then buy more Freedoms. The problems have finally been resolved and the potential work to upgrade them has been, in large part, paid for by the Saudis

 

[CordyB]

Are you seriously citing the Falklands War as a source for the capability of weapons systems in 2025? That’s laughable

That gives the impression you are seeing US weapon systems through rose tinted glasses. I have a more cynical bent of view and do not trust service chiefs views as they have been trying for years to hamstring the DOT&E and this year Hegseth obliged them by massively cutting their budget in June '25

The last seen report on the Mk 54 LWT was the DOT&E FY2023 Annual Report: Navy: Mk 54 a few quotes
"The Navy ended the Mod 1 Increment 1 IOT&E in October 2022 (2 live firings) without completing the DOT&E approved test plan. IOT&E was adequate to evaluate performance in a limited set of scenarios, but not in the acoustically challenging environment of shallow water for which improvements were expected to have the greatest effect on torpedo performance // The Mod 1 Increment 1 torpedo is not operationally suitable due to low availability and reliability. Mod 1 torpedoes are more likely to shut down early compared to Mod 0. A detailed assessment is in the classified IOT&E report for Mod 1 Increment 1 dated April 2023. "

The other point to highlight is that submarines have moved on since the Falklands War with their ability to significantly both reduce their ability to reflect or generate sound waves through a combination of anechoic tiles and hull design with ability to absorb the incoming sound waves from an active sonar, which reduces and distorts the return signal, making the submarine much harder to detect, why Navy is spending hundreds of $billions on Columbia and Virginia/SSN(X).