US FF(X) Program

[MadRat]

We must be prepared for conflict by 2030. That is too soon for anything save for what was already ordered and the Legend class. LCS Independence class imho was a valid corvette design, but lets not fool ourselves believing they were ever an FF. It has plenty of capabilities, like NSM, that make it dangerous. What it lacks is survivability. But as an offensive weapon, it was pretty effective. Just do not kid yourself to believe it was a long range asset. For Pete's sake, its originally planned main punch was just Longbow Hellfire Surface-to-Surface Missiles (Mk299 MOD2 launchers containing 8 Hellfire missiles). It eventually got NSM which should have been added from the start. The LCS Freedom class was a real disgusting misuse of resources. It also doesn’t help that neither class can stay at sea for over 30 continuous days as required by any FF and greater size of warships.

 

[Kat Tsun]

We must be prepared for conflict by 2030.

That would've been a great slogan in 2011, when the J-20 showed up, I guess. The USN, and most of DOD, is just assuming that the war will be a bruising at best and we might be able to still build ships when it's over. So people are programming for 2050, not 2030, and hoping for the best.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There won't be convoys. They're likely too high profile.

The big oil tankers only do ~15 knots. That's still convoy speed.

Anything else is fast enough it can effectively outrun even nuke subs, 20-25 knots.

 

[Scott Kenny]

We must be prepared for conflict by 2030.

Then we're going in with what is in service right now as of the start of 2026.

 

[cccgong]

The big oil tankers only do ~15 knots. That's still convoy speed.

Anything else is fast enough it can effectively outrun even nuke subs, 20-25 knots.

That's only if the subs are chasing. Not if they sit and wait or intercept based on sat data broadcast to them via ELF.

That's not how it works but I don't think I can explain it to you in a way you'll be able to understand.

The reason the Navy is able to buy FF(X) is because the Coast Guard doesn't want NSC though.

Personal attack much? Congress can definitely force the CG to buy more cutters and tell them to do more showing the flag missions.

That is absolutely not the reason, if anything the CG wanting more NSC would simply the procurement process for FF(X) as the tooling would still exist. Only the first ship will be built at HII, afterwards there's competition for further procurement.

You still haven't linked why you think the FF(X) is useful in a Pacific war.

 

[Firefinder]

sat data broadcast to them via ELF

By the time they get the data they be unable to use it cause it's out of date.

ELF is EXTREMELY low datarate, we are talking like a few bytes per hour. Like the USN sop was to send no more then like 12 letters, which took up to 30 minutes to do. With at being, 688 Surf, to tell that sub to get periscope depth to use it Satcoms which was so much faster. The fastest message was the FIRE DA NUKES codes for the SSBNs. This was not a tech limit but a hard physic limit everyone spent a lot of money to get around. The fact that ELF has largely gone away shows how THAT went.

A decently handle surface ship can and will be able to basically Drunk Walk around even a wolf pack of Subs who trying to be stealth extremely easy.

Multiple exercises, some of which had the Ship Captain in connect with the Sub telling them exactly what they doing has shown that.

Unless they break stealth, and get deleted, Subs are just too slow for that these days.

They need to sit and wait well ahead to get in position to do their jobs and those areas been plotted out for decades and be covered in hunter killer groups, which includes other Subs, making Sub lives miserable.

 

[cccgong]

By the time they get the data they be unable to use it cause it's out of date.

ELF is EXTREMELY low datarate, we are talking like a few bytes per hour. Like the USN sop was to send no more then like 12 letters, which took up to 30 minutes to do. With at being, 688 Surf, to tell that sub to get periscope depth to use it Satcoms which was so much faster. The fastest message was the FIRE DA NUKES codes for the SSBNs. This was not a tech limit but a hard physic limit everyone spent a lot of money to get around. The fact that ELF has largely gone away shows how THAT went.

A decently handle surface ship can and will be able to basically Drunk Walk around even a wolf pack of Subs who trying to be stealth extremely easy.

Multiple exercises, some of which had the Ship Captain in connect with the Sub telling them exactly what they doing has shown that.

Unless they break stealth, and get deleted, Subs are just too slow for that these days.

They need to sit and wait well ahead to get in position to do their jobs and those areas been plotted out for decades and be covered in hunter killer groups, which includes other Subs, making Sub lives miserable.

You can get by with exceptionally low data rates here. All you need is their current grid square and a direction heading/speed. That's 2 bytes for a grid square, 1 byte for speed, 1 byte for vector. You broadcast that on a continuously updated loop for subs to determine which ones they want to engage. You can't use ELF for complex messaging but for something like this, it would work. China also has the worlds largest ELF facility

The US has acoustic speakers along SOCUS, that they use to communicate to their subs. The Chinese can do similar with theirs though I'm unsure how much coverage their network has.

With SLCM, subs don't have to be close to engage unescorted ships who think they are at low risk of sub attack. Breaking stealth to attack them is also much lower risk due to no escorting ship. Avoiding the subs also requires knowing that they are there in the first place. Which is unlikely if you don't have escorts doing ASW.

 

[DJK]

Then we're going in with what is in service right now as of the start of 2026.

But if its a couple years late, you might have an extra Burke to show up. If the CCP is reluctant to start anything without more SSN production, you best have more ASW to match because you cant build SSNs fast enough.

We've been over this a few times, the Legend class will be incapable of ASW without a full redesign of its propulsion.

But will the whole stern also need a redesign?

100%

And therefore, Congress should refuse to fund it, and: 1) tell the Navy to get busy hiring engineers to restock NavSea with the capability to respond timely to industry…because…2) establish requirements for conceptual design RFPs for a range of new multi-mission surface combatants, including a new design FFG (CG & DDG being the others).

The new design FFG should have the ability to pace CVSGs and 8,000nm range to escort logistics vessels from Pearl to Guam and return. The new design FFG should mount some version of SPY-6, at least 32 Mk.41 strike length VLS, stern volume & bracing to fit CAPTAS-4 VDS & a MFTA, 2x4 naval strike missile deck launchers, 2x12 JQL deck launchers, a 5” gun, 2x Mk.38 mod 4 30mm remote weapon systems, all integrated & controlled by the latest AEGIS CMS baseline & SQQ-89 ASW system version. The new design FFG should also include space for modern sit-up berthing for a full naval & naval aviation crew, plus space for USMC & USCG VBSS crews & merchant mariner prize crews, davits & storage for RHIBs needed for VBSS, a flight deck sized for MH-60s, a hangar & ammunition storage capable of maintaining 2x MH-60R, and storage for fuel oil to support the range and avgas to permit days of flight operations matching a common replenishment interval.

It will be a big warship. We need 100 of them.

I wish Mk-38 wasnt the only medium cannon the navy ever considers. Not that flexible as future threats evolve into both cheap and fast, trying to force you to expend missile magazines.

So you need more than 2 FFG then

 

[Kat Tsun]

Personal attack much? Congress can definitely force the CG to buy more cutters and tell them to do more showing the flag missions.

That's not what a presence mission is for DOD.

That is absolutely not the reason, if anything the CG wanting more NSC would simply the procurement process for FF(X) as the tooling would still exist. Only the first ship will be built at HII, afterwards there's competition for further procurement.

This would be useless for DON. Unless you want to give DHS a bunch of Tomahawk missiles and somehow find enough Coasties to man another two dozen NSCs (USCGC Friedman wasn't optioned with a rebuild due to 10% personnel cuts in 2022), they can't do what DON needs.

That would be a really dumb idea for other reasons, too.

You still haven't linked why you think the FF(X) is useful in a Pacific war.

I literally told you. It's incredibly simple. A US-China War will be a Major Regional or Regional Nuclear War. The US Navy will still have priorities in Africa, the Middle East, and South America that will need to be met. This will mostly mean cruise missiles.and assisting European Union naval forces.

A Burke is an unnecessary and overly optioned piece in such tepid threat environments when you're fighting the superpower next door.

 

[cccgong]

That's not what a presence mission is for DOD.

This would be useless for DON. Unless you want to give DHS a bunch of Tomahawk missiles and somehow find enough Coasties to man another two dozen NSCs (USCGC Friedman wasn't optioned with a rebuild due to 10% personnel cuts in 2022), they can't do what DON needs.

For actual saber rattling, show force missions to disuade hostile countries FF(X) is not going to cut it.

Where do you think we will find sailors to man an additional 25 FF(X)? The same way you recurit the same would be done for the CG. But either way FF(X) won't disuade hostile nations.

I literally told you. It's incredibly simple. A US-China War will be a Major Regional or Regional Nuclear War. The US Navy will still have priorities in Africa, the Middle East, and South America that will need to be met. This will mostly mean cruise missiles.and assisting European Union naval forces.

A Burke is an unnecessary and overly optioned piece in such tepid threat environments when you're fighting the superpower next door.

I don't know what your defintion of major regional war is. At minimum Taiwan, US, Japan, China, Phillipines would be involved. With NK, SK,, and Australia being very likely participants too. With countries like Singapore, Malaysia, India, and some more adventurous NATO nations depending on how the war starts.

In a China war makes you think the USN will have any presence in Africa, the Middle East, and South America? The African/Middle Eastern bits would be handed off to NATO and allied navies. Why would the NATO navies need assistance and cruise missiles if the majority of them aren't joining the war?

I never advocated for more AB's.

 

[DJK]

For actual saber rattling, show force missions to disuade hostile countries FF(X) is not going to cut it.

Where do you think we will find sailors to man an additional 25 FF(X)? The same way you recurit the same would be done for the CG. But either way FF(X) won't disuade hostile nations.


I don't know what your defintion of major regional war is. At minimum Taiwan, US, Japan, China, Phillipines would be involved. With NK, SK,, and Australia being very likely participants too. With countries like Singapore, Malaysia, India, and some more adventurous NATO nations depending on how the war starts.

In a China war makes you think the USN will have any presence in Africa, the Middle East, and South America? The African/Middle Eastern bits would be handed off to NATO and allied navies. Why would the NATO navies need assistance and cruise missiles if the majority of them aren't joining the war?

I never advocated for more AB's.

Im pretty sure th European navies would say "no thanks, FF(X) adds nothing to our own patrol ships and OPVs so we don't need more liabilities". Its pretty much a patrol ship for the west Atlantic I guess? Or drive it through the Taiwan Strait as a tripwire thats too tempting not to sink.

 

[Maskoki]

You just described something shockingly close the Constellation.

Maybe I did.

I agree with many that the FFX adds very little to fleet over any timeframe, so in thinking about what we do need, I landed on the smallest possible multi-mission warship (capable of unescorted activity away from the first island chain).

I understand that the Constellation is dead, but that doesn’t mean we don’t need the warship I described. It just means that we need a new FFG design.

Yes, if we fight tonight, we go with Burkes. For the future, regardless of timeframe, we need new designs. Everyone has said that we don’t need Burkes doing all the jobs the Navy owns. So what do we need?

We need a warship that can escort CVSG replenishment ships in a hot war. We need a warship that can escort logistics ships in a hot war. We need a warship that can seize Chinese merchant shipping in China’s SLOCs.

The aforementioned warship needs top-end ASW, low-volume top-end AAW, self-protection from surface warships/USVs/armed merchants & cruise missiles/UAVs, and VBSS capabilities.

So we need a FFG. Given the range and systems needed, it will be bigger than most imagine. And we still need 100 of them.

Why not just build a Burke? Because the Navy intends to replace Burkes (eventually) with something more capable in higher volume of missiles than the aforementioned missions demand. Also, Burkes aren’t the best ASW platform, they have huge/expensive crews, and they bring more to the SLOCs than the mission demands - excess that belongs in the first island chain, not the SLOC fight.

 

[EmoBirb]

Which is why Chinese 054B in high fleet context is irrelevant example, it is not Frontline unit.
Gorshkov is, but it's but a sign that Russian navy doesn't amount to much.

It isn't, it's an auxillary/escort meant to conduct ASW and a certain level of AAW while also retaining strike capabilities against ships and land targets. It's not meant to charge a CSG and launch a gazillion Zircons, Kalibr or Oniks at it.

The frontline units of the Russian Navy are the likes of the Yasens, Akulas, Oscars, Belgorod and Khabarovsk. These are vessels meant to hunt down and sink targets of value as well as denying the operation of such assets across large patches of sea.

Any bucket with gun and standard self defense suit will be of huge help. And, unlike 28 gun 6th rank, it'll never ever in its career find itself in missile fight with a heavy frigate.

I find this very naive/optimistic. Yes freeing up DDGs is a big drive behind US frigate and corvette efforts (calling LCS for what they are here), but just having hulls doesn't mean they're worthwhile. FF(X) may not find itself under attack from Admiral Nakhimov, Nanchang or an SSN, but it will find itself under threat of drones, anti ship cruise and ballistic missiles, as well as USVs and possibly UUVs. These are threats already readily encountered in the Red Sea, Persian Gulf and other waters in the region. Proliferation will continue and these threats already exist in regions like South America and Africa as well. And when we consider how quickly and readily US DDGs and CGs expended their magazines, it's easy to see how quickly a weakly armed and equipped vessel is...out of it's depth...even in waters that are not roamed by a superior or near peer Navy like the South China Sea or parts of the Northern Atlantic.

A certain capability is required to make the cost justified and a certain capability is required even for "showing flag" operations. Because the threat level is evolving quickly.

And with that said, FF(X) as proposed in it's initial form is easily one of the worst and least cost-effective frigates devised in the last...50 years (more akin to an overweight gunboat)? But the proposed ideas about subsequent blocks adding much needed capability and credibility in less risky incremental steps could actually result in something useful.

 

[MadRat]

It is a pet peeve to keep hearing FF cannot ASW in this thread. Legend class will command drone units that are proven to be quite tireless in the role. So they didn't spend $200 million on propulsion quieting and sonar. That is actually a good decision. People are stuck in 1942 mindsets for what ASW looks like.

Maybe I did.

I agree with many that the FFX adds very little to fleet over any timeframe, so in thinking about what we do need, I landed on the smallest possible multi-mission warship (capable of unescorted activity away from the first island chain).
...

You really describrd more of a DDG than FFG(X). Constellation was gunned down to a Mk110 57mm system which was nothing like a modern Mk45 Mod4 5-inch/62 cal rapidfire gun. Oliver Hazard Perry used the OTO Melara Mk75 76 mm/62 cal rapidfire gun. The Knox class before it was a 3-inch gun. The standard it seems for FFs since WW2 has been about a 3-inch. The 57mm with ALaMO was deemed a suitable replacement. Without ALaMO its a bit of a spray and pray solution. The 76s had guided ammunition, too. Either 57mm or 76mm will be fine on the low end, for corvettes and FFs. I agree the FFG(X) should be considered with a 5" gun over the 57mm.

But there is a US FFG(X) thread to discuss that. This thread is about FF(X).

 

[Ainen]

It isn't, it's an auxillary/escort meant to conduct ASW and a certain level of AAW while also retaining strike capabilities against ships and land targets. It's not meant to charge a CSG and launch a gazillion Zircons, Kalibr or Oniks at it.

The frontline units of the Russian Navy are the likes of the Yasens, Akulas, Oscars, Belgorod and Khabarovsk. These are vessels meant to hunt down and sink targets of value as well as denying the operation of such assets across large patches of sea.

Submarines are by default incapable of sea superiority or any maritime policy projection.
Yes, Russian Navy still builds a lot of submarine tonnage (though most of it is boomers, i.e. dead weight).
In practical terms, Russian navy can neither properly defend use of sea to its advantage, nor deny anything sea to anyone.

FF(X) may not find itself under attack from Admiral Nakhimov, Nanchang or an SSN, but it will find itself under threat of drones, anti ship cruise and ballistic missiles, as well as USVs and possibly UUVs.

If we speak about drones, it's better protected against them than Burke and Independence, and more or less equal to Constellation or Freedom. For subsonic cruise missiles(which are for now majority of effective proliferation) it's also protected well enough.

Ballistic missiles will add hundreds of millions, effectively turning ship into a mini-destroyer.

And with that said, FF(X) as proposed in it's initial form is easily one of the worst and least cost-effective frigates devised in the last...50 years (more akin to an overweight gunboat)?

I'm of opposite opinion. Granted, they're overpriced(this is true for almost all modern US weapon systems), but for they're exactly fit for their tasks, and waste not a single USD over that.

 

[Maskoki]

I'm of opposite opinion. Granted, they're overpriced(this is true for almost all modern US weapon systems), but for they're exactly fit for their tasks, and waste not a single USD over that.

‘Efficiently less expensive’ is good no doubt, but we have to get wartime missions fulfilled with them, else they consume funds (construction and operations) better used on something with dramatically more capability (or at least leaving fewer gaps). What wartime tasks do you have in-mind for the FFX?

 

[Ainen]

‘Efficiently less expensive’ is good no doubt, but we have to get wartime missions fulfilled with them, else they consume funds (construction and operations) better used on something with dramatically more capability (or at least leaving fewer gaps). What wartime tasks do you have in-mind for the FFX?

Rear area escort. Any area other than gulf(where there are specialized combatants), which can be possibly stripped of Burkes, shall be stripped and instead filled with these.
It's WW2 FF/Sloop/Aviso, rather straighforward. In modern sense, it's(rather sensibly) a variant of CG cutter, but under fleet command and with full USN within-the-horizon self-defense suit.

Yes, ideally it'd be better if it would have ASW. But frankly speaking, right now there isn't that much well understood* ASW threat in the rear to worry about. The only thing i'd personally add as stock is some sort of active TPS, but (to my knowledge) this is as of now an unique Ru capability set (irony).

*asterix for future AI/space enabled drones, which isn't fully understood - and, as such, can't be reliably countered with pre-existing means.

 

[Maskoki]

Rear area escort. Any area other than gulf(where there are specialized combatants), which can be possibly stripped of Burkes, shallbe stripped and instead filled with these.
It's WW2 FF/Sloop/Aviso, rather straighforward. In modern sense, it's(rather sensibly) a variant of CG cutter, but under fleet command and with full USN within-the-horizon self-defense suit.

Rear area escort…gotcha. What are the rear area threats?

 

[EmoBirb]

Submarines are by default incapable of sea superiority or any maritime policy projection.
Yes, Russian Navy still builds a lot of submarine tonnage (though most of it is boomers, i.e. dead weight).
In practical terms, Russian navy can neither properly defend use of sea to its advantage, nor deny anything sea to anyone.

Submarines are what prevent an opposing force to achieve any form of battlefield superiority or initiative. Their presumed presence and ASW having been utterly outpaced since the late cold war make any sufficiently modern submarine a threat too great for a given battlegroup to deal with in a reasonable manner. And since the risk is too great, any given formation of ships is unable to effectively project power, let alone achieve their primary objectives because they're not able to operate undeterred. Especially nowadays with potent AShMs being commonplace on many attack submarines, the stand off range and ability to deny ASW assets an easy hunt make it unacceptable to take such risks for valuable naval assets, limiting their impact immensely.

In the sea are two types of vessels, submarines and targets. There is nothing in between and even at a tremendous cost, a lost SSN would make up for it by sinking several vessels prior to that outcome. In an actual war the submarine and naval mines are the two greatest weapons ever devised and cost to effectiveness ratio is clearly in favor. Other types of vessels are suitable for policing and low intensity engagements, but surface ships are swimming targets in any all out war and especially in the day and age of orbital surveillance making it virtually Impossible for them to hide. But yes, in peace time a submarine holds less value and cannot be easily utilized. They are offensive weapons meant as well as having area denial qualities. And there is no single weapon better suited to hold naval assets at risk and sink them than a modern nuclear attack submarine.

And all of this applies to conventional SSNs, submarines like Belgorod and Khabarovsk add an entirely new dimension to submarine warfare as they have essentially intercontinental stand off range and hold high value targets at risk without having to be anywhere close to their intended target.

If we speak about drones, it's better protected against them than Burke and Independence

It really is not, it is even more lightly armed than the Independence with regards to defensive armaments. The Arleigh-Burke is so tremendously better protected against all threats across the entire spectrum that it's not necessary to address this further.

For subsonic cruise missiles(which are for now majority of effective proliferation) it's also protected well enough.

A single 57mm, 30mm and a lonely RAM launcher are not "well enough", Destroyers have seriously eaten into their VLS to defend against low quality Houthi missiles. 16 cells should be the absolute bare minimum for a third line ship that's not intended to operate anywhere near a peer force. For anything more serious, more cells are required. We're talking about a supposed "Frigate" (gunboat in actuality) that has less self defense capability than a Braunschweig-Class corvette. One of the more lightly armed modern corvettes.

I'm of opposite opinion. Granted, they're overpriced(this is true for almost all modern US weapon systems), but for they're exactly fit for their tasks, and waste not a single USD over that.

By that logic the USN can bolt a couple .50 cals to fishing vessels and call it a day. Both concepts are equally inadequat.

 

[Ainen]

Rear area escort…gotcha. What are the rear area threats?

Coastal piracy/attempts of reinventing letters of marque, blockade runners, SOF operations;
Space-enabled cheap drones (flying/surface).

Also, inner screen of convoys and personalized escort of important assets in higher (but not high) threat areas, including Gulf if necessary.

It really is not, it is even more lightly armed than the Independence with regards to defensive armaments.

Effective AA suit for both is BAE mk.110 and RAM. But for Independence its RAM is self contained pack, due to limitations of design, which comes with half the ammo capacity. It also lacks proper GFCS radar.
FFX, as shown, has the latter, full capacity RAM launcher(21 missile) and SEWIP 2. Which is same level as FFGX and non-fl.3 burkes.

A single 57mm, 30mm and a lonely RAM launcher are not "well enough", Destroyers have seriously eaten into their VLS to defend against Houthis missiles. 16 cells should be the absolute bare minimum for a third line ship that's not intended to operate anywhere near a peer force.

57mm BAE (which comes with both prog and guided rounds btw), by an large, is best naval tool in the world for small swarming incomers(surface/slow air).
RAM is, at very least, best tool in US arsenal for CIWS work against at least average IKEA cruise missiles, but it also works well enough against simpler targets even when they don't emit. Both also happen to be tools which can be ressuplied at sea, without specialized facilities.

The whole point for these threats is to defend against them without touching VLS capability. You don't come with VLS to attritables fight.

By that logic the USN can bolt a couple .50 cals to fishing vessels and call it a day. Both concepts are equally inadequat.

Nope, by my logic there's a need for fully seaworthy hull with sufficient speed(incl. at sea states) with full WVR (aviation term, but you get the point) suit not eating in any attritable categories. Everything else can and should be modular.

Also, I honestly don't see reasons for sarcasm aimed at boats with 0.50 guns. It's an important capability, and we have recent examples of how navies paid dearly for considering those below them.

Submarines are what prevent an opposing force to achieve any form of battlefield superiority or initiative.

It'll take a long reply to that. Long story short - no, it doesn't work this way, and in any case Ru navy modern long range multirole submarines can still be counted with fingers of 1 hand.

 

[Kat Tsun]

For actual saber rattling, show force missions to disuade hostile countries FF(X) is not going to cut it.

"Saber rattling". Jfc it's for throwing Tomahawks at ISIS/Houthis and freeing up every other COCOM to send their Burkes to INDOPACCOM.

Where do you think we will find sailors to man an additional 25 FF(X)?

DOD doesn't control the CG's budget what the fuck. Kristi Noem isn't going to push for CG funding when ICE/CBP are the DHS priority.

I don't know what your defintion of major regional war is.

"Your definition"?



"Major Regional Conflict" is what DOD has called wars like Desert Storm or Bosnia for nearly 30 years. China in Taiwan is probably a bit hotter than Desert Storm or Kosovo, and a bit less hot than NATO's Central Front, so they made up the new term "Large Scale Combat Operation" to replace it after GWOT blew apart DOD's conventional warfighting capacity. I think LCSO is supposed to give more precedent to the ability to move large groups of forces rather than the need to commit a shrinking force to multiple conflict zones. Stuff like CRAF and the MARAD got more atrophied since the 90s than the actual force structure. It also accounts for the fact that the U.S. might be regionally overmatched by opponents and thus require a longer shaping phase.

Fighting the PLA in Taiwan would be considered an MRC because China has neither the capacity nor the intent to expand the war to other theaters. WW2 was the basis for "two MRCs", because neither Germany nor Japan could mutually support each other in the ETO/PTO, and it's shaping up that the PRC may not be able to do much outside of the SCS and India. That's all within INDOPACCOM.

They're simply not the Soviet Union so there's no real reason to engage multiple COCOMs against the Chinese mainland.

At minimum Taiwan, US, Japan, China, Phillipines would be involved. With NK, SK,, and Australia being very likely participants too. With countries like Singapore, Malaysia, India, and some more adventurous NATO nations depending on how the war starts.

It's literally all going to be INDOPACCOM. China doesn't have a global empire like the Soviets did.

In a China war makes you think the USN will have any presence in Africa, the Middle East, and South America?

The need for horizontal escalation by both sides will absolutely demand it. The Chinese will yank the chain on Kenya or South Africa if the U.S. escalates in Central Asia. Venezuela's decapitation was probably as much about eliminating Maduro as a cartel leader as it was about removing a Chinese pawn from the Western Hemisphere's chessboard.

The African/Middle Eastern bits would be handed off to NATO and allied navies.

Only the Mediterranean, GIUK Gap, and Middle East could be covered by the European Union. Africa would need to be a multinational.

Why would the NATO navies need assistance and cruise missiles if the majority of them aren't joining the war?

They're joining the war one way or another.

I never advocated for more AB's.

Well I doubt you're calling your Congressman or in a position to lobby for it so yeah that tracks.

Im pretty sure th European navies would say "no thanks, FF(X) adds nothing to our own patrol ships and OPVs so we don't need more liabilities". Its pretty much a patrol ship for the west Atlantic I guess? Or drive it through the Taiwan Strait as a tripwire thats too tempting not to sink.

The EU doesn't have the combined naval forces to do something like Prosperity Guardian by itself. The U.S. will still be laterally escalating with ground forces in AFRICOM and CENTCOM anyway, because INDOPACCOM is a primarily aero-naval theater, and they'll be otherwise unengaged. Djibouti and South Africa in particular will need to be nipped by FORSCOM and the Marines somehow.

 

[Maskoki]

Coastal piracy/attempts of reinventing letters of marque, blockade runners, SOF operations;
Space-enabled cheap drones (flying/surface).

Also, inner screen of convoys and personalized escort of important assets in higher (but not high) threat areas, including Gulf if necessary.

Thanks.

The piracy use case feels like a match for the NSC / FFX, so if we need to build a few more NSC to bolster the USCG/USN fleet for that work, great.

I worry that the blockade that demands a USNavy warship will be our “far blockade” of escorted and /or armed Chinese merchants / tankers in the Indian Ocean or Bering Sea, and as such, the US Navy warship needs to have better AAW protection than the FFX can mount, since the PLAAF can reach the Bay of Bengal from its land bases and since the Russians can reach the Arctic & North Pacific from its bases.

Since any escort force (whether logistical or high value target, like an ESB) should have as much ASW as possible, isn’t the FFX superfluous, since the notional ASW-capable FFG would also be capable of dealing with USVs & boats?

As mentioned before, if the FFX is a low volume project to keep shipyards busy until a fresh FFG design is ready for production, then the Navy can give the few FFXs built to the USCG. But if the plan is to build a dozen or more FFX, at the expense of another ship with capabilities the US Navy needs badly, the Congress needs to yank the funding and tell the Navy that it will fund a keel-up FFG design.

 

[Kat Tsun]

the Congress needs to yank the funding and tell the Navy that it will fund a keel-up FFG design.

A great way to get nothing, historically speaking.

 

[Maskoki]

A great way to get nothing, historically speaking.

You’re not wrong, especially over the last 25-years.

But is it better to lay out significant precious dollars for something that doesn’t really help us at all in wartime?

Stuff we build for peacetime (LCS, FFX) can’t help us much in a war. But stuff we build for war can still fill peacetime roles.

When the opponent is building for war at a rate of one European navy-per-year, with 16 cruisers in the water, and the US Navy is decommissioning prime warships (2-3 688s/year & only 5x CG-47s left) faster than it is building new ones (1x 774 & 0 AB-IIIs in 2025), with AB-Is/IIs exiting the fleet at a rate of 3.5/year in the 2030s, does it make sense to care that much about, or spend constrained dollars on, peace time ships?

 

[Desertfox]

Yes, IF it saves wear and tear and expands the lifetime of the Burkes. Of course ships that can fill wartime roles are better, but something is better than nothing.

 

[Kat Tsun]

You’re not wrong, especially over the last 25-years.

But is it better to lay out significant precious dollars for something that doesn’t really help us at all in wartime?

Insane statement, honestly. Any ship, any hull, is better than nothing at this point.

Constellation failed because it tried to make a Burke at half the price with no real loss in capability. This is impossible in the same way that a house cannot be bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. FF(X) is doing the opposite: to make a ship capable of operations in environments so sedate they can only replace Burkes in EUCOM, AFRICOM, and CENTCOM during a INDOPACCOM fight, and it will likely be the cost of a Connie.

This is acceptable because the Connie was an attempt to fit a budget. It's just that American NAMEs are too incompetent to do that now.

Yes, IF it saves wear and tear and expands the lifetime of the Burkes. Of course ships that can fill wartime roles are better, but something is better than nothing.

If FF(X) is successful it will shorten the lifespans of every Burke immensely.

 

[cccgong]

Coastal piracy/attempts of reinventing letters of marque, blockade runners, SOF operations;
Space-enabled cheap drones (flying/surface).

This can all be done with the standard NSC. You don't need the FF(X) version for it.

"Saber rattling". Jfc it's for throwing Tomahawks at ISIS/Houthis and freeing up every other COCOM to send their Burkes to INDOPACCOM.



DOD doesn't control the CG's budget what the fuck. Kristi Noem isn't going to push for CG funding when ICE/CBP are the DHS priority.

We don't need ships to do this. Regional allies or airpower can fire stand off CM, they can also do more of that.

You can't seem to understand that Congress would be doing the reallocation of funds and demanding at CG take on show the flag missions. DOD would not be doing funds reallocation...

Only the Mediterranean, GIUK Gap, and Middle East could be covered by the European Union. Africa would need to be a multinational.

China won't be sending ships to the Med/GIUK. If NATO is joining as you're proposing they would be able to shift forces to cover Africa/Red sea and thereby preventing China from getting to the Med/GIUK.

It's literally all going to be INDOPACCOM. China doesn't have a global empire like the Soviets did.

The need for horizontal escalation by both sides will absolutely demand it. The Chinese will yank the chain on Kenya or South Africa if the U.S. escalates in Central Asia. Venezuela's decapitation was probably as much about eliminating Maduro as a cartel leader as it was about removing a Chinese pawn from the Western Hemisphere's chessboard.

Only the Mediterranean, GIUK Gap, and Middle East could be covered by the European Union. Africa would need to be a multinational.

They're joining the war one way or another.

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying it's just going to be INDOPACCOM, but then saying that there will be African escalation and that NATO navies will be joining the war. You can't have it both ways.

You're going to be engaging multiple combat commands worth of forces, as you'll be stripping all of the air and naval forces from other combat commands to feed into the Pacific.

"Major Regional Conflict"...

Again you're contradicting yourself. It's going to be way hotter the Gulf War... You're proposing a Pacific conflict + African escalation + central Asian escalation... With the likihood of a majority of the USN being damaged or sunk. But saying it's a bit hotter than the Gulf War.

Thanks.

The piracy use case feels like a match for the NSC / FFX, so if we need to build a few more NSC to bolster the USCG/USN fleet for that work, great.

I worry that the blockade that demands a USNavy warship will be our “far blockade” of escorted and /or armed Chinese merchants / tankers in the Indian Ocean or Bering Sea, and as such, the US Navy warship needs to have better AAW protection than the FFX can mount, since the PLAAF can reach the Bay of Bengal from its land bases and since the Russians can reach the Arctic & North Pacific from its bases.

Since any escort force (whether logistical or high value target, like an ESB) should have as much ASW as possible, isn’t the FFX superfluous, since the notional ASW-capable FFG would also be capable of dealing with USVs & boats?

As mentioned before, if the FFX is a low volume project to keep shipyards busy until a fresh FFG design is ready for production, then the Navy can give the few FFXs built to the USCG. But if the plan is to build a dozen or more FFX, at the expense of another ship with capabilities the US Navy needs badly, the Congress needs to yank the funding and tell the Navy that it will fund a keel-up FFG design.

Agreed. A ship that's useless in wartime makes no sense when you have limited resources. It'll be a long term drag on budgets reducing future ship building and just as importantly missile acquisition/stockpiling.

If you're talking about traditional piracy not false flagged Chinese container ships with VLS, we don't need FF(X). NSC will be sufficient. If it's the false flagged container ships with VLS, FF(X) will not be sufficient.

 

[Ainen]

This can all be done with the standard NSC. You don't need the FF(X) version for it.

I don't think so.
This is a wartime, i.e. gray hull (navy) mission, not enforcing(white hull) one.
Wrong set of skills and wrong chain of command. Navy is not "more dakka" CG ultimately, it's a national instrument with a different purpose.

Furthermore we have a wrong armament set, as mission does need a within the horizon defense at this point. Iranian Ikea is still a thing (let's see in 24 hrs).

I worry that the blockade that demands a USNavy warship will be our “far blockade” of escorted and /or armed Chinese merchants / tankers in the Indian Ocean or Bering Sea, and as such, the US Navy warship needs to have better AAW protection than the FFX can mount, since the PLAAF can reach the Bay of Bengal from its land bases and since the Russians can reach the Arctic & North Pacific from its bases.

The problem is the moment you get into reach of key CN/Ru strike assets(which are theater or beyond), discounts don't work at all. For DF or Kinzhal, Constellation is no different; only Burke counts.
I.e. when we're talking these secondary combatants, we specifically assume that either they operate beyond range of those assets, or act as close screen under higher level ship protection, or rely on ambiguity/insufficient priority.

 

[cccgong]

During wartime there will be little to no difference, in WW2/Gulf War CG was used as naval forces. If there's more than 2-3 subsonic CM coming towards a FF(X) it's likely going to get hit. You can also fit 8 ESSM onto the NSC giving it a similar capability as FF(X).

Kinzhal slows down quite a bit at terminal with a mostly ballistic trajectory, the Ukrainians clocked it at M3.5, I wouldn't expect it to be much of a problem for Constellation with SM2/6. Additionally I wouldn't expect the Russians to be much of a threat due to being depleted vs Ukraine. DF will be another story.

 

[Ainen]

During wartime there will be little to no difference, in WW2/Gulf War CG was used as naval forces. If there's more than 2-3 subsonic CM coming towards a FF(X) it's likely going to get hit. You can also fit 8 ESSM onto the NSC giving it a similar capability as FF(X).

VLS ESSM with their significant dead zone, as guided via small radar isn't more self defense capability when compared to RAM+sewip; you just can't reload them at sea.

At this point I honestly struggle to see argument rationale: CG doesn't add in some alternative pool of crews. Yes, you can make FFXs white, it'll make them worse for stated purpose(wrong command structure and training), but otherwise will work out eventually.
It's totally ok to paint even Burkes white, and say they're going to be navy during wartime anyway...

 

[cccgong]

The CG will be performing more Navy esque duties during a war. During WW2 they performed convoy escort, ASW, landed troops for D-day. During the Gulf War they performed blockade enforcement. These encompass all the tasks envisioned for the FF(X) in a Pacific war.

You can provide some marginal upgrades (ESSM/RAM retrofit) to the the NSC and future cutters they procure to allow them to perform a wider array of tasks during wartime. This would bring them to a capability level similar to FF(X) for a marginal sum.

 

[Ainen]

The CG will be performing more Navy esque duties during a war. During WW2 they performed convoy escort, ASW, landed troops for D-day. During the Gulf War they performed blockade enforcement. These encompass all the tasks envisioned for the FF(X) in a Pacific war.

You can provide some marginal upgrades (ESSM/RAM retrofit) to the the NSC and future cutters they procure to allow them to perform a wider array of tasks during wartime. This would bring them to a capability level similar to FF(X) for a marginal sum.

They will, but during peacetime it isn't their main trade.
Now there is no question of need for mor CG assets, there's a need for more lo navy ones. This doesn't mean they have to be specifically much stronger than CG ones.
They have to fit the task, everything else to me seems as some sort of imposed stratification, where navy is cooler than CG.

Yes, you can expand CG instead - but it will harm CG in their own role(which is no less important than navy), and deny navy assets in all but name proper peacetime integration and training.
If you arm them up - for navy it's their job; for cg, wasted resources, crewing and autonomy.

Yes, you can make a white hull Burke(or bbgx, or ssgn) and legally impose it on CG; they'll try to make it work, and will get into corporate rivalry with navy as a bonus. It isn't illegal, it's just not optimal.

 

[MadRat]

We currently have regional lines of control that will reveal themselves as or not to be contested paths. Until dominance of the sea is established it will be two forces sparring together. Once the enemy fleet is neutralized then you can focus on stabilizing LOCs for supplies. There will always be threat potential from submarine and airborne attacks, if the coasts and littorals remain uncontested. If the enemy fleet wins the LOC then dominance undersea and through the air will be critical. FF assets may push down the middle, but they are not equipped to post up for the best shots. What they will provide with their drones is knocking down a wide swath of weeds to drive game to the shooters. They will be critical in that respect. We might even lose some of them. Better to lose FFs than any designation with the Gs.

 

[cccgong]

They will, but during peacetime it isn't their main trade.
Now there is no question of need for mor CG assets, there's a need for more lo navy ones. This doesn't mean they have to be specifically much stronger than CG ones.
They have to fit the task, everything else to me seems as some sort of imposed stratification, where navy is cooler than CG.

Yes, you can expand CG instead - but it will harm CG in their own role(which is no less important than navy), and deny navy assets in all but name proper peacetime integration and training.
If you arm them up - for navy it's their job; for cg, wasted resources, crewing and autonomy.

Yes, you can make a white hull Burke(or bbgx, or ssgn) and legally impose it on CG; they'll try to make it work, and will get into corporate rivalry with navy as a bonus. It isn't illegal, it's just not optimal.

You're missing what I'm saying. We can spend marginal amounts of money to give the existing CG NSC hulls FF(X) capability. This can also be done with future top end CG hulls enhancing traditional wartime CG capabilities (which is what FF(X) would be doing anyways).

This should be done instead of building FF(X). This will free up money for procurement of more capable ships for the navy.

 

[Ainen]

You're missing what I'm saying. We can spend marginal amounts of money to give the existing CG NSC hulls FF(X) capability. This can also be done with future top end CG hulls enhancing traditional wartime CG capabilities (which is what FF(X) would be doing anyways).

This should be done instead of building FF(X). This will free up money for procurement of more capable ships for the navy.

Existing ships alre have ffbnw capabilities - ones you've just mentioned.(small VLS)

The provl is that USN(not CG) needs exactly that capability set, of that very production line, off it's procurement budget, just slightly adjusted...

 

[MadRat]

Fitted For But Not With (FFBNW) sounds expensive.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Money has been pulled from the FFGX program and shifted to FFX

https://news.usni.org/2026/02/06/funding-bill-moves-constellation-frigate-money-for-new-ffx-program

 

[johnpjones1775]

You're missing what I'm saying. We can spend marginal amounts of money to give the existing CG NSC hulls FF(X) capability. This can also be done with future top end CG hulls enhancing traditional wartime CG capabilities (which is what FF(X) would be doing anyways).

This should be done instead of building FF(X). This will free up money for procurement of more capable ships for the navy.

But it doesn’t change the fact that the navy will remain short of ships or the CG will be short of ships while the legends do navy stuff.

 

[Mallard]

But it doesn’t change the fact that the navy will remain short of ships or the CG will be short of ships while the legends do navy stuff.

I just dont understand the overwhelming faith in this design with its limited production run and issues with construction and maintenance. Besides all the issues actually making it into a warship.

 

[cccgong]

I just dont understand the overwhelming faith in this design with its limited production run and issues with construction and maintenance. Besides all the issues actually making it into a warship.

My hope is the first FFG(x) comes out in 2028 right around election time, and the FF(x) is still in development hell. With Trump no longer in office and therefore less corruption and kick backs money is shifted back to FFG(x) as they are able to produce them now.