Future USN Frigate Design Speculation

[Kat Tsun]

They will 100% be convoys. You need to keep fuel going to keep the Japanese and Philippine economies afloat, in addition to fuel/parts/ammo to efforts in region. Without convoys it's a free for all for Chinese subs, false flagged container ship raiders, and maybe surface fleet. As with satellites these days you have perfect information of where all the ships in the region are.

They have their own navies they're big boys. The main thing is going to be dipping in and out of the blockade to deliver LNG tankers to Taiwan that end up self assembling from trade lanes near the South China Sea. Everyone expects the Chinese to institute a quarantine of Taiwan and intercept or hold cargo vessels outside, to try to starve the island.

If the PRC wants to shoot they can, but it will be something like the Caribbean Crisis or Bella 1 rather than WW2, at least initially.

FF(X) would be poorly suited to presenting a boarding deterrent threat. Keeping an 055D away would be like the Bezzavetnyy ramming Caron.

How would FF(X) be useful in a Pacific conflict.

I've already explained this. Read it or don't.

The coast guard is actually taking up allot of the showing the flag missions, with their NSC. You can just buy more cheaper ships for the coast guard for that purpose.

The USN isn't buying ships for the Coast Guard lol.

 

[cccgong]

They have their own navies they're big boys. The main thing is going to be dipping in and out of the blockade to deliver LNG tankers to Taiwan that have self assembling from trade lanes near the South China Sea.

If the PRC wants to shoot they can, but it will be something like the Caribbean Crisis or Bella 1 rather than WW2, at least initially.



I've already explained this. Read it or don't.



The USN isn't buying ships for the Coast Guard lol.

The Phillipines definitely doesn't have a significant navy, and you'd still help out Japan if only for supplies that you'd use yourself. It entirely depends on how they decide to start it. There's benefits to both methods.

Link please to your rationale.

Congress is buying the ships they can decide they will buy more NSC for the CG do to showing the flag missions.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Congress is buying the ships they can decide they will buy more NSC for the CG do to showing the flag missions.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[MadRat]

My take on acquisition problems has been the disjointed definition of capability between the different roles. In WW2 there was quite a lot of consistency from the lowest tiers to the top. A frigate didn't so much exist in USN jargon, and we had destroyer escorts. The British flipped the words and called them Escort Destroyers, but it didn't stop there as they also had frigates of the same weight class. The British distinguished frigates from destroyers simply by whether they carried torpedoes or not, and they had lighter sloops and an ambiguous notion of larger corvettes that were smaller than frigates but larger than sloops. The Russians had guard ships and the Japanese had kaibōkan (coastal patrol ship) in similar roles. Then you had all sorts of minor combatants such as gunboats, torpedo boats, patrol ships, monitors, and coastal defense ships. The USN kept it pretty simple, strap the biggest gun on it that it can handle. Smaller ships generally carried 3-inch/50-cal (76 mm) guns, and larger ones got 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns. Anti aircraft guns ranged in size from M2 Browning .50-cal BMGs, 20 mm (0.79 in) Oerlikon cannon, 1.1-inch/75-cal (28 mm) "Chicago Pianos", and the 40 mm (1.6 in) Bofors. But they simplified in most cases to single 20 mm and twins 40 mm mountings across smaller warships. Early pre-WW2 destroyers might have 4″/50-cal M1898s (102 mm) and/or obsolete 3-inch/23-cal (76 mm) guns. Destroyer escorts, primarily for antisubmarine warfare and convoy escort service, started getting built around 3-inch/50-cal (76 mm) guns in open mounts. Later destroyer escorts and pre-WW2 built destroyers often carried single 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns in enclosed mounts. Destroyers built during the war had improved mountings and gun fire control systems. Twin 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns started to become standard as destroyers got progressively designed larger. Early pre-WW2 cruisers and battleships with open mount 5-inch/25-cal (127 mm) guns were being replaced by more capable cruisers and battleships with concentric rings of twin 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns, backed by massive arrays of 20 mm and 40 mm cannon. The Oerlikon and Bofors were also spread across lighter vessels. Ships were bought in progressive sizes. Guns were built to progressive sizes. Boilers, fire controls, radars, and everything else were built with a small variances of sizes whenever possible, adapting designs to use what could be sustained during war-time. My current sense is that the USN has too many designs to maintain, and it needs to get back to the discipline of keeping new options and old options across the globe at the same time. Instead of upgrading every fleet with a hodgepodge, concentrate all of the new stuff into key areas and bump leftovers to the rest with an eye towards concentrating the same standardized equipment into the same fleets. The 7th and 5th Fleets needs the best atm. The 4th the least. The 2nd, 3rd, and 6th somewhere in between. Plan for upgrades to go in the key spots and trickle down eventually the the 4th. Assign major and niche assets to the fleets somewhat upon demand. Units in the niche FF(X) category may then better focus on what is needed as standard.

 

[johnpjones1775]

My take on acquisition problems has been the disjointed definition of capability between the different roles. In WW2 there was quite a lot of consistency from the lowest tiers to the top. A frigate didn't so much exist in USN jargon, and we had destroyer escorts. The British flipped the words and called them Escort Destroyers, but it didn't stop there as they also had frigates of the same weight class. The British distinguished frigates from destroyers simply by whether they carried torpedoes or not, and they had lighter sloops and an ambiguous notion of larger corvettes that were smaller than frigates but larger than sloops. The Russians had guard ships and the Japanese had kaibōkan (coastal patrol ship) in similar roles. Then you had all sorts of minor combatants such as gunboats, torpedo boats, patrol ships, monitors, and coastal defense ships. The USN kept it pretty simple, strap the biggest gun on it that it can handle. Smaller ships generally carried 3-inch/50-cal (76 mm) guns, and larger ones got 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns. Anti aircraft guns ranged in size from M2 Browning .50-cal BMGs, 20 mm (0.79 in) Oerlikon cannon, 1.1-inch/75-cal (28 mm) "Chicago Pianos", and the 40 mm (1.6 in) Bofors. But they simplified in most cases to single 20 mm and twins 40 mm mountings across smaller warships. Early pre-WW2 destroyers might have 4″/50-cal M1898s (102 mm) and/or obsolete 3-inch/23-cal (76 mm) guns. Destroyer escorts, primarily for antisubmarine warfare and convoy escort service, started getting built around 3-inch/50-cal (76 mm) guns in open mounts. Later destroyer escorts and pre-WW2 built destroyers often carried single 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns in enclosed mounts. Destroyers built during the war had improved mountings and gun fire control systems. Twin 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns started to become standard as destroyers got progressively designed larger. Early pre-WW2 cruisers and battleships with open mount 5-inch/25-cal (127 mm) guns were being replaced by more capable cruisers and battleships with concentric rings of twin 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns, backed by massive arrays of 20 mm and 40 mm cannon. The Oerlikon and Bofors were also spread across lighter vessels. Ships were bought in progressive sizes. Guns were built to progressive sizes. Boilers, fire controls, radars, and everything else were built with a small variances of sizes whenever possible, adapting designs to use what could be sustained during war-time. My current sense is that the USN has too many designs to maintain, and it needs to get back to the discipline of keeping new options and old options across the globe at the same time. Instead of upgrading every fleet with a hodgepodge, concentrate all of the new stuff into key areas and bump leftovers to the rest with an eye towards concentrating the same standardized equipment into the same fleets. The 7th and 5th Fleets needs the best atm. The 4th the least. The 2nd, 3rd, and 6th somewhere in between. Plan for upgrades to go in the key spots and trickle down eventually the the 4th. Assign major and niche assets to the fleets somewhat upon demand. Units in the niche FF(X) category may then better focus on what is needed as standard.

I think the loss of a true pressing naval threat and closure of naval yards has been the biggest issue.

Since the fall of the USSR we had to maintain high end warships with almost no high end thereat.
No major naval threat meant our navy shrank immensely, which resulted in closure of yards public and private.
Lack of major threats means new plansconstruction didn’t have any real direction on what they’re supposed to do.

Zumwalt and LCS programs were examples.

Zumwalt- we wanted a super stealthy ship to bombard the shore…who was the actual target in mind there?

LCS- start as a program for FAC-M and then ballooned.

 

[MadRat]

Sort of. Came to me since we remembered Iranian speedboats, and for quite a few years they have just this kind of "speedy TELs"

The NASAMS system uses the Common Ground Rail (CGR). CGR is an adaptation of existing Missile Rail launcher (MRL) family used by aircraft that just so happens to be fairly compatible to a lot of missiles: AMRAAM, AMRAAM-ER (ESSM body with AIM-120C-8 front), Sidewinders up to the AIM-9X, AIM-132 ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Derby, Python, A/R-Darter, MICA, and Meteor.

The U.S. Army uses a Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) capable of firing Hellfire, Stinger, and AIM-9X missiles. The U.S. Army's Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2 looked seriously at Hellfire Longbow to supplement AMRAAM but it looks like AIM-9X was the better fit as Hellfire was determined to be hazardous. Avenger, M-SHORAD, and Ukraine's Tempest have all tested Hellfire Longbow for air defense. Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) has also explored Hellfire Longbow for integration. In 2012, ESSM was tested with NASAMS for evaluation to market it to MIM-23 Hawk users. AMRAAM-ER was also selected for testing. Denmark is the first country to buy AMRAAM-ER.

 

[DWG]

The U.S. Army uses a Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) capable of firing Hellfire, Stinger, and AIM-9X missiles. The U.S. Army's Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2 looked seriously at Hellfire Longbow to supplement AMRAAM but it looks like AIM-9X was the better fit as Hellfire was determined to be hazardous.

The 15 cell Multi-Missile Launcher was part of IFPC Increment 1 (CRAM), but it was scrapped due to reported launch issues with the AIM-9X and replaced by the Leidos-Dynetics Enduring Shield for IFPC Increment 2 (CRAM + cUAS and counter Cruise Missile)*, which is basically an evolved MML with 18 launch cells and no AIM-9X launch issues. Enduring Shield will be deployed as a platoon of four launchers plus an AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel networked via the Integrated Battle Command System. The initial Dynetics order was for 16 launchers and 60 missiles to be delivered by 2024. A 2025 order under IFPC Increment 2-I (Interceptor) covers further development. The ultimate plan is 400 launchers.

Currently the only IFPC missile is AIM-9X, but LockMart, Boeing-Anduril and Rafael have contracts** to develop an IFPC 2nd Interceptor, where the Army apparently wants the performance of AIM-120D in an AIM-9X sized missile. Downselect is due this year with development due by 2030.

* cUAS vs Group 2 and 3 drones seems to have been split out into Next-Generation C-UAS Missile (NGCM), which was won by the Aerovironment Freedom-Eagle 1 (seriously?) over the existing Coyote, both of which cost somewhere around $100,000, vs $500,000 for an AIM-9X.

** Awarded separately (October, December, and last week) under Other Transaction Authority to avoid conventional contracts (and conventional competition downselects?).

(Which all sounds like a very expensive way to avoid buying NASAMS).

 

[MadRat]

Okay, fellas. Let's start nailing down specific baselines for an FF(X). I propose:

Main Gun Weapon System (GWS) - Bofors 57 mm (2.24") Mark 110 Mod 4 Naval Automatic Gun System (AGS) mounted in a low-RCS stealth cupola atop the fore-deck. 120 rounds ready in the mount; additional rounds can be loaded from below-deck magazines. Mark 110 is operated by remote control from the Gun Console (GC) within the Control Officers Console (COC) of the Mark 160 Gun Computer System (Mark 160 GCS), but can be controlled locally in the gun mount. Mark 160 GCS is capable of direct firing attacks against surface radar and optically tracked targets, as well as indirect firing during Naval Gun Fire Support (NGFS). Alternate: Oto Melara 76 mm/62-cal Super Rapid Compact Naval Gun (aka OTO 76/62 SR) is a high-performance naval gun, offering rapid fire, multi-role capabilities, and advanced ammunition options. Total destructive effect favors the 76mm for larger near-misses, but guided and smart 57mm rounds narrow the gap.

Gun Fire Control - Mark 160 Gun Computer System (Mark 160 GCS), AN/SPQ-9B Multi-Purpose Surface Search and Fire Control radar (aka "Spook 9"), and Mark 20 Mod 1 Electro Optic Sensor System (Mark 20 EOSS). Mark 160 GCS is located in the ship's Combat Information Center (CIC) and serves as both the central fire control brain and primary interface between the Mark 110 GWS, the ship's Command and Decision (C&D) system, and an array of mixed sensors. Within the Combat Information Center (CIC), the Gun Console (GC)—often part of the Control Officer's Console (COC)—acts as the main operator interface for the Mk 160. Mark 160 GCS translates target information into gun aiming orders via the Signal Data Converter/Gun Mount Processor (SDC/GMP) and the precision enables an effective Anti-Ship Missile Defense (ASMD). There are two Mark 20 EOSS aboard, and together these serve three primary functions: EOSS/GWS integration, automatic target detection and tracking, and day/night video surveillance. AN/SPQ-9B is controlled at the COC; the high-fidelity X-Band, pulse-doppler radar provides defense against low altitude (below 2000 ft) surface and air targets such as sea skimming missiles, for either gun fire engagement or navigation. Track While Scan (TWS) mode provides high resolutions in two dimensions for the detection and tracking of more than one thousand objects at or near the surface of the water. The Control Officer operates the AN/SPQ-9B and displays target video on the Plan Position Indicator (PPI), assigns targets to the TWS channels, initiates the desired operating mode, selects the Gun Fire Control Console (GFCC), assigns targets and respective gun mounts to a respective Weapons Control Console (WCC), enables WCC firing circuits, then disables the WCC after engagement. Mark 20 EOSS supports operations including anti-surface and anti-air warfare, spotting and damage assessment, target detection and identification, naval gun fire support, safety check-sight, location/track of man overboard and channel position and navigation. The MT 51 Velocimeter (located on the main gun mount) measures the initial velocity of the round leaving the barrel via a doppler signal.

CIWS - One fore-mounted Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) with the 20 mm M61A2 Vulcan 6-barreled Gatling cannon, or 11-cell SeaRAM for forward and abeam shots. One 21-cell RIM-116C Block 2B Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) in RAM Mark 31 Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS) located high astern for rearward and abeam shots. Both Phalanx CIWS and SeaRAM are autonomous systems which do not need any external information to engage threats. Due to the common mounting, SeaRAM inherits the relatively easy installation characteristics of its gun-based sibling.

Close Range MG - Typhon-mount (Mark 38 Mod 3) Machine Gun System (MGS) located abeam each side, with a TOPLITE gimbal stabilized 25 mm/1" Bushmaster II. The MGS features multi-functional displays in a remote control console, independent electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors, a laser rangefinder, target autotracking, and two ammunition types. Each Mod 3 also features a backup 7.62mm Mark 52 co-axial gun. MGS focuses on robust close-in self defense. Direct-fire defense against small surface craft and as part of a layered protection against missile and drone threats. Distributed to each quadrant, either the 12.7 mm (.50") M2HB Browning Heavy Machine Guns (HMG; with 100 round or 200 round ammo can holder) or MK19 40 mm Grenade belt-fed Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL; with 32 or 48 round ammo cans) on MK93 Mod 4 free-swinging pintle mounts. With adapters the M60/MK43 7.62 mm General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG; with 250 round ammo can), M240 7.62 mm GPMG (with 300 round ammo can), or M249 5.56 mm Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW; 250 round ammo box) can be installed on the MK93 mount as alternative options.

Angle-container Missiles - 8 RGM-184 Naval Strike Missiles (NSM Q) for surface and land strikes, 12 AMRAAM-ER or AIM-9X in six-pack LCHR-derived multi-missile launch containers from NASAMS 3 for air-defense, 8 Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) or 16 Ground Launched StormBreaker (GLSDB2) containers for precision fires land strike, or 24 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles for counter-drone roles; or any combination thereof. Located on the upper weapons deck.

VLS Missiles - Mounted in combination of medial and/or exterior (perimeter) deck spaces. 12/24 RIM-162E Block 2 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) in one or two medially located 6-cell dual-packed Mark 56 Guided Missile Vertical Launching System (GMVLS). Provisional space for an additional two Stanflex modular mission payloads, laterally located on the lower weapons deck perimeter.

Directed Energy Weapons - 60 kW High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) for light speed counter drone (UAS/UUV) capability. LRADs (long-range acoustic devices) to repel pirate attacks by sending warnings and by producing intolerable levels of sound.

Torpedo and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) - Mark 32 surface vessel torpedo triple tubes for the 12.75-inch (324 mm) Mark 54 ASW torpedo. Copperhead-100M reusable unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) delivered by Anduril's Ghost Shark AI-powered extra-large autonomous underwater vehicle (XL-AUV) designed for long-range, persistent, and stealthy surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike missions.

Other Ship Defenses - Two Nulka decoy launchers. Nulka hovers in the air and emits radiofrequency energy to lure the seekers of anti-ship missiles. AN/SLQ-32 Mod 5 electronic warfare suite. Mark 36 Super Rapid Bloom Offboard Countermeasures Chaff and Decoy Launching System (SRBOC aka "Super-R-Boc") short-range Decoy Launching System (DLS) that launches radar or infrared decoys from naval vessels to foil incoming anti-ship missiles. SLQ-32 (with the exception of the (V)4 variant) can automatically fire decoys from the Mark 36 SRBOCs when it detects an anti-ship missile attack. Towed and offboard decoys for submarine torpedo threats.

Communications - Multi-Functional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS). Link-11 and Link-16 tactical data links, enhanced command and control (C2) capabilities to facilitate real-time, secure, and jam-resistant data (voice, data, imagery, and video) sharing with Navy, Joint, and coalition forces. MIDS JTRS enables simultaneous operation of Link 16 and up to three additional advanced networking waveforms, including Tactical Targeting Networking Technology (TTNT) and Flexible Access Secure Transfer (FAST). MIDS JTRS uses software-defined radio technology to update and adapt to future security and networking requirements.

Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Multifunctional Radar - AN/SPS-75 (Giraffe 4A) is a multi-role medium-range AESA surveillance radar system in three dimensions for naval applications. It provides medium range, simultaneous air and surface surveillance and can be employed in a weapon designation role. AN/SPS-75 uses Agile Multi-Beam (AMB), which includes an integrated Command, control and communication (C3) system. This enables AN/SPS-75 to act as the command and control center in an air defense system. AN/SPS-73(V)18 Next Generation Surface Search Radar (NGSSR) enhances safety and situational awareness while it simultaneously performs navigation, surface search, and periscope detection (PDD). While primarily for navigation, it offers, advanced, limited, low-altitude, short-range, situational awareness against surface and aerial threats. NGSSR is a software-configurable, Agile Multi-Beam (AMD) in the X-band, maritime radar designed to replace legacy systems on U.S. Navy surface combatants.

Forecastle Main Mast - The primary Mark 20 EOSS is located above the bridge. AN/SLQ-32C(V)6 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block II; see below for details. AN/UPX-29(V) Interrogator System for electronic Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) air traffic control. AN/URN-32 Combined Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) Antenna and Beacon Transponder to provide azimuth (bearing) and range (distance) information to aircraft. Rapid Deployment Elevation System (RDES) derived telescopic mast that can extend to a point 200 feet above sea level (ASL) with up to 1200 pounds, and has a structural rating for survival in 80 mph winds.

RDES Mounted Sensors - A secondary Mark 20 EOSS is RDES-mounted. Maximum extension allows for direct Line-of-Sight (LOS) of 18.6 miles; this location enhances naval or land-based situational awareness by significantly increasing the sensor's vertical field of regard and horizon LOS. This combination allows for faster, higher-angle target detection, improved horizon scanning, and enhanced identification capabilities. Elevated sensors offer a better view of congested waterways, shorelines, or urban environments. RDES allows the system to be raised or lowered in minutes, enhancing flexibility in fast-paced operational environments.

Electromagnetic Warfare (EW) Suite - AN/SLQ-32C(V)6 SEWIP aka "SEWIP Lite". EW consists of three major subdivisions: electronic attack (EA), electronic protection (EP), and electronic warfare support (ES). Activities used in EW include electro-optical, infrared and radio frequency countermeasures; Electromagnetic (EM) compatibility and deception; radio jamming, radar jamming and deception and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM aka anti-jamming); electronic masking, probing, reconnaissance, and intelligence; electronic security; EW reprogramming; emission control; spectrum management; and wartime reserve modes.

Signature Reduction - Low visibility paints to reduce visual, ultraviolet, and infrared identification. Over 13 dB Radar Cross Section Reduction (RCSR) and similar audible emissions reduction. A 13 dB radar cross-section (RCS) reduction corresponds to more than a ten-fold (95%) decrease in the reflected power of a target, effectively reducing its radar signature by over one order of magnitude. In practical terms, this means a target becomes much harder to detect, as a 13 dB reduction shrinks the detection range significantly to about 5% compared to an untreated object.

Bow-mounted Sonar - AN/SQQ-89(V)15 integrated Undersea Warfare (USW) Combat System Suite. Computer-controlled, bow-mounted AN/SQS-53C ("Kingfisher") high frequency active and passive sonar with the capabilities to search, detect, classify, localize and track undersea contacts, and to engage and evade submarines, mine-like small objects and torpedo threats. The AN/SQS-53C is most effective for shallow water navigation, object avoidance, and mine warfare. AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar (TACTAS) which is a component of the AN/SQQ-89 sonar suite, is a series of hydrophones towed from a cable several thousand feet behind the ship, that is able to passively detect adversary submarines at a very long range. AN/SQR-19 combines active and passive hydrophone arrays for Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) detect and track capability. Additional towed arrays on deployed Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) and/or from a Seahawk helicopter. AN/UQN-4 Sonar Sounding Set (also known as EDO Model 9057) is a digital depth sounder/fathometer for measuring the depth of water from the ship’s keel to the ocean floor for safe operational navigation. Fathometers are operated from all classes of United States (U.S.) Navy surface ships and are considered Mid-Frequency Active (MFA) sonars. AN/WQC-2 (commonly known as "Gertrude" or "The Underwater Telephone") is a hull-mounted transducers or towed-line array utilized as an Underwater Voice Communication (UVC) system used for secure, short-range, two-way, voice, and Morse code communication between submarines, surface vessels, divers, and other underwater vehicles. AN/SQR-19 slated to be eventually replaced by AN/SQR-20 Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA) and its more advanced TB-37U sensors. AN/SQR-20 and TB-37U offers better performance against quiet diesel-electric Submarine Killers (SSKs) in littoral environments, increased reliability, and reduced obsolescence.

Aviation Support - Chinook and Sea Stallion deck load capacity for efficient Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP). Hangar storage for one Seahawk helicopter and distributed deck moorings to secure up to three helicopters on available deck space. AN/URN-32 Combined Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) Antenna and Beacon Transponder to provide azimuth (bearing) and range (distance) information to aircraft. AN/UPX-29(V) Interrogator System for electronic Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) air traffic control.

Propulsion and Primary Power Generation - Combined diesel–electric and gas (CODLAG) system using one reversible controllable-pitch propeller. A single 7,400 kW (9,900 hp) Fairbanks Morse Defense (formerly Rolls-Royce) 20-cylinder MTU 20V 1163 TB93 diesel engine provides the best power efficiency to provide propulsion and an onboard power supply. An additional two Fairbanks Morse Defense (formerly Rolls-Royce) 20-cylinder nForcer FM 175D engines 3,750 kW (5,000 hp at 1,800 rpm) may be called upon to combined for an additional 14.875 MW of power. Main cruise solely requires diesel–electric power; the mechanical drive train is disengaged with clutches. Eliminating the mechanical connection between engines and propellers has several advantages including increased freedom in placement of the engines, acoustical decoupling of the engines from the hull, which makes the ship less noisy, and a reduction in weight and volume. Reserve diesel–electric and alternative power sources can boost speeds temporarily with minimal acoustic increase using two additional reversible controllable-pitch propellers. For higher speeds, the reserve 22 MW (30,000 hp) General Electric LM2500 gas turbine engine - with clutches engaged - powers the main shaft via a cross-connecting gearbox. The LM2500 gas turbine is available to quickly respond to increases in dynamic power demands and it can spool up to full power in under 5 minutes. In an emergency the gas turbine can effective propel the ship on its power alone. Reserve diesel engines may take between 20-30 minutes to bring the them up to an efficient rotational speed, and all three diesel–electrics are necessary for an 18 knot cruise speed. The 7,280 kW (9,760 hp at 1,000 rpm) Fairbanks Morse 16V28/33D STC diesel engine may substitute for the MTU 20V 1163 TB93, but maximum cruise speed will drop a up to half a knot.

Auxiliary Power Generation - Integrated electric propulsion (IEP). Two reserve diesel–electric engine and a gas turbine provide for auxiliary electrical generation to meet dynamic energy demands. Some soft storage capacity for transitioning. Distributed hull-mounted bifacial solar cell (BSC) panels, connected to limited battery storage, boosts the daily electrical generation during fair weather. BSCs may provide between 20-30% of energy demands for daytime travel at cruise speeds. The trash incinerator, or Waste-to-Energy (WtE) system, provides minor electrical generation at a rate of about 500 to 600 kWh of electricity per ton of waste incinerated. Retractable bow thrusters for dock maneuvers.

Operational Speed - 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph) maximum speed. Hull design for cruise speed of 18 knots.

Endurance - Expected range of 12,000 nautical miles (22,000 km; 14,000 mi) at a 16 knot cruise under diesel–electric engine power alone. Provisional storage for 60-75 duty cycles of an expected minimum 150 day deployment. This includes up to 30,000 gallons (125 tons) of drinkable and potable fresh water, volume equivalent to 17 "twenty-foot equivalent unit" (abbreviated TEU; approximately 20,000 cubic feet) of provisional dry storage concealed in weather-tight containers stored under the deck cover space, and an addition 2 TEU (of approximately 2,500 cubic feet) of mixed storage facilities distributed across internal compartments.

Replenishment - Underway replenishment (UNREP - for Solid, Liquid, Ammunition) and VERTREP (for Solid, Ammunition) capable. Supplies may also be delivered through the LARS, telescoping and swiveling davit locations, and mooring access points at the ship fantails.

Child Vessels - Ability to launch and recover a mixture of manned and/or unmanned child vessels (RHIBs, tenders, Ghost Shark UUV, or minisubmarines). An internal boat bay with weather-tight external doors for dry stack storage of up to four 10 meter child vessels (RHIBs/UUVs). One high-sea-state stern launching ramp (LARS aka "float-in garage") for up to one 25 meter boat; designed to launch and recover smaller craft while in motion or in high seas. This LARS is specifically designed to handle one Combatant Craft Medium, Mark1 (CCM). The stern ramp allows for the launch and recovery of boats without the mother vessel having to come to a complete halt. The garage keeps child vessels secured and protected from the elements, as opposed to being stored on an open deck. Mooring for CCM located on ship fantails located near trailing edges along each side of hull. Two boat cradles located above-deck on the stern with capacity for up to 10 meter child vessels facilitates transfers from dry stack storage to the sea surface.

Utility Cranes - One aft-mounted telescoping and swiveling davit (12-ton capacity hydraulic crane), and one 11-ton capacity telescoping and swiveling davit (electrical crane) located inside each side of internal boat bay. Cranes are for launch/recovery of a Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB), UUV, or Combatant Craft Assault (CCA); replenishment; or deployment of sea mines. Weather-tight gangway (narrow passage used to board or disembark ships) connects the LARS well to the center of the ship. Two internal winches on a fixed gantry atop shaft spaces for moving palletized supplies through internal spaces; one of which can be used to transfer up to a 10 meter child vessel from the LARS well to internal boat bay space.

Poke it to pieces.

edit: FF(X) not FFG(X)

 

[helmutkohl]

sounds like a mix of constellation and legend

 

[mokahete]

sounds like a mix of constellation and legend

And slowly it would become more of a constellation and less of a legend as scope creeps.

 

[cccgong]

With the Chinese adding hypersonic torpedo tube launched ASM to the type39 now, enough VLS for sm6 or later sm2 blocks is now the minimum bar for entry. Similarly a more capable very high mounted non rotating radar to have chance of detection before impact for anything that’s going to operating outside of AWACs coverage.

You also should not have so many different VLS types plus angled launchers. Much better to have just MK41 and/or MK57 so that you can better mix and match missile types and engage on both sides of the ship with all missiles. It’s also better to just build in the VLS into the hull rather than use stanflex from a reaction time, seakeeping, RCS, and mass efficiency perspective.

I’m unclear what you’re trying to accomplish with AIM-120 and AIM-9 launchers that essm + searam + guns won’t do. Also the way they are mounted will also compromise RCS and will have limited firing arcs.

Regarding drones, unless you’re within 10-20miles of shore I wouldn’t expect more than 2-3 drones at once and your ciws, laser, and main gun will be able to handle significantly more

Propulsion wise, you should go to something larger than the LM2500 such as MT-30 to accommodate the larger radar, DEW, and growth margin. You may also need more diesel power to run the radars + cruise at 18-20kn with cargo ship convoys. I’m highly highly skeptical solar panels will do very much to help ship power requirements, and will greatly increase ship RCS.

Regarding RCS I believe overhead RCS reduction will also important to try and hide from satellites but I don’t think that will be very feasible

Link to the hypersonics https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...killer-missiles-aboard-chinas-aip-submarines/

 

[MadRat]

The point of offering flexibility in angled and VLS is to allow focuses in capability. One could use a flexible jack of all trades layout, or go heavy in one direction or another. Having the ability to focus on air defense, either at a higher end ESSM anti fast movers or lower Hellfire antidrone level, creates further focus on a particular mission. If Mark 56 and the Stanflex strategy could support non-ESSM options for land attack or surface warfare, that would help. Tactical Mark 41 certainly is a better VLS, but it also soaks up space and money.

The angled launchers offer quite a few existing options where investment in common mounting between Army and Navy weapons would pay off in land strike capability. NASAMS is another program they need to lean on as unmanned and auxiliary vessels could carry launchers to spread a wide web of coverage. This is why Giraffe 4A would be better than Giraffe 1.

Irregular warfare capability is one particular focus that is a no brainer. Frigates have been the presence asset since the age of sail, and being able to land people into local environments should not require floating sea bases or major task groups. The transom of a ship being able to accept smaller vessels adds significantly to these missions, which is why Independence class ships should be kept in action imho.

 

[DJK]

The point of offering flexibility in angled and VLS is to allow focuses in capability. One could use a flexible jack of all trades layout, or go heavy in one direction or another. Having the ability to focus on air defense, either at a higher end ESSM anti fast movers or lower Hellfire antidrone level, creates further focus on a particular mission. If Mark 56 and the Stanflex strategy could support non-ESSM options for land attack or surface warfare, that would help. Tactical Mark 41 certainly is a better VLS, but it also soaks up space and money.

What a nightmare for logistics, lots of random small systems with a few rounds each that all need their own reloads stored somewhere. Mk56 was relevant for FFX but you are talking about this as an updated FFGX replacement. If tactical Mk-41 wont fit, go for SD Mk-41, im sure lockheed hasn't forgotten to build it. A navy needs some things standardised, so for example they develop a way to reload Mk-41 at sea and that becomes available across the fleet.

I doubt Phalanx is worthy of becoming the ubiquitous CIWS again, bit long in the tooth. Generally it needs to fire an airburst projectile, and there are tradeoffs about deck penetration vs reloading from deck magazine lockers. Its a discussion for all ships in the fleet, is 30mm bushmaster the solution (reliable) and/or is there a need for bigger mounts with different features. CIWS now has to deal with a potential drone swarm as well as last ditch missile defence. And i am sure there are people whos only job is to figure out what sort of enemy drone carrier will make it possible.

The angled launchers offer quite a few existing options where investment in common mounting between Army and Navy weapons would pay off in land strike capability. NASAMS is another program they need to lean on as unmanned and auxiliary vessels could carry launchers to spread a wide web of coverage. This is why Giraffe 4A would be better than Giraffe 1.

NASAMS should be able to handle whichever radar is chosen, its supposed to be a flexible system. However, being angled air defence launchers, they are taking the spot reserved for other angled AD launchers like RAM.

The choice of weapon or sensor flows from its purpose, which should be defined broadly before specifying details. Need VSHORAD for supersonic missiles? RAM might be the choice. A bit more range for layered defence? ESSM and SM2 are currently the goto across the fleet, and already integrated with naval CMS. Need radar as high as possible for sea skimmers? An X band rotator maybe. Need more range and capacity? Another radar lower on the mast. Compromise with fixed face X band if preferred to give a multifunction system including gunfire control. Angled lland attack aunchers to replace the default NSM? There might be a case for that, but somebody has to argue that case and match it to the defensive requirements of getting into position to use it. Maybe its about being versatile, but is this the new LCS replacement as a shore bombardment platform?

Irregular warfare capability is one particular focus that is a no brainer. Frigates have been the presence asset since the age of sail, and being able to land people into local environments should not require floating sea bases or major task groups. The transom of a ship being able to accept smaller vessels adds significantly to these missions, which is why Independence class ships should be kept in action imimho.

Bring back the stern ramp? Maybe more valuable than a containerised launcher that may get deleted to launch boats?

And slowly it would become more of a constellation and less of a legend as scope creeps.

Legend was never a survivable warship anyway. Constellation was what Navy wanted in a frigate.

 

[MadRat]

If people are going on about FFG(X) then take your argument there, please.

What a nightmare for logistics, lots of random small systems with a few rounds wach that all need their own reloads stored somewhere. Mk56 was relevant for FFX but you are talking about this as an updated FFGX replacement.

Jesus, FF(X). Not FFG(X). Neither Mk48 nor Mk56 would turn a frigate magically into a guided missile frigate. These are lightweight cells to place on what are considered non-guided missile warships. No SPY radar was mentioned, the U.S. Navy's current guided missile warship standard.

 

[cccgong]

If people are going on about FFG(X) then take your argument there, please.

Jesus, FF(X). Not FFG(X). Neither Mk48 nor Mk56 would turn a frigate magically into a guided missile frigate. These are lightweight cells to place on what are considered non-guided missile warships. No SPY radar was mentioned, the U.S. Navy's current guided missile warship standard.

What is said about the FFGX applies equally to FFX. As I as many others believe the FFX is a more or less useless ship and FFGX to be the minimal bar for entry.

You also wouldn’t get what you described to fit on the NCS and the deletion of the stern ramp as mentioned is very questionable.

Also an mentioned angled launchers are bad for AAW due to both lag time to launch and also weather limitations

 

[MadRat]

What is said about the FFGX applies equally to FFX. As I as many others believe the FFX is a more or less useless ship and FFGX to be the minimal bar for entry.

Then talk about it in the other thread. The repeated talk about FF(X) not being FFG(X) is irrelevant and trolling at this point. FF(X) exists. Get over it.

You also wouldn’t get what you described to fit on the NCS and the deletion of the stern ramp as mentioned is very questionable.

You do not make sense. There are ships in the same weight class as the Legend class cutter that already carry similar things.

Also an mentioned angled launchers are bad for AAW due to both lag time to launch and also weather limitations

Cite a source, because this simply is not supported from anything I have read.

 

[cccgong]

Then talk about it in the other thread. The repeated talk about FF(X) not being FFG(X) is irrelevant and trolling at this point. FF(X) exists. Get over it.


You do not make sense. There are ships in the same weight class as the Legend class cutter that already carry similar things.


Cite a source, because this simply is not supported from anything I have read.

I believe it's perfectly valid conversation. Especially if you're talking about your desired loadout for a new USN frigate.

Which ships have the same class of capabilities. The other ships I see don't have the same range, crew accommodation spaciousness, and were designed for that from the get go. Your desire for a LARS ramp directly conflicts with both the stanflex modules (there's no where to put them) and towed array requirements. The stanflex modules also directly conflict with the requirement of being able to secure 3 helicopters on the deck.

With the currently available deck spec on the NSC, I'm having a hard time seeing where the 8 NSM would go after you've mounted the 12 ESSM sized MK56 VLS in the designed for location. This is also 12 missiles not the 24 you want as discussed earlier in the thread.

This appears to be a very ASW focused design, yet it doesn't have the ability to fit any ASROC.

On top of all this you want an internal water-tight boat bay for 4x 10m long class UUV along with handling and recovery equipment for ~20t UUV.

Finally you want to rip out the propulsion setup and redesign the ship for IEP which is a large portion of the way to designing a new ship.

If you wanted a novel ship design maybe you could fit all of this in, but it would be a larger ship than the NSC and you definitely won't be able to retrofit it into the NSC.

I was thinking you wanted to use the Typhon launchers upon re-read it wasn't mentioned. However you still have 1/2 your missiles not being useful for threats coming from the opposite side of the ship.

 

[DJK]

I believe it's perfectly valid conversation. Especially if you're talking about your desired loadout for a new USN frigate.

Whether FF(X) can defend itself is relevant. Its a light frigate, but some form of VLS is pretty much minimum requirement for any "FF". Maybe in future it will mean line of sight defences like big lasers vs an "FFG" having any missiles at all. For now everything needs some air defence missiles.

Which ships have the same class of capabilities. The other ships I see don't have the same range, crew accommodation spaciousness, and were designed for that from the get go. Your desire for a LARS ramp directly conflicts with both the stanflex modules (there's no where to put them) and towed array requirements. The stanflex modules also directly conflict with the requirement of being able to secure 3 helicopters on the deck.

The ship should have been designed around stanflex if that was going to be a feature. What uses the limited stern real estate is going to be a compromise anyway since we have an OPV thats trying to evolve into a frigate. I would say towed array is highest priority, and then being able to launch a functional USV. Probably angled AShM launchers would be next.

With the currently available deck spec on the NSC, I'm having a hard time seeing where the 8 NSM would go after you've mounted the 12 ESSM sized MK56 VLS in the designed for location. This is also 12 missiles not the 24 you want as discussed earlier in the thread.

NSM is currently competing for space with everything else you would want on the stern. It may or may not get a spot. Or it might be important enough to cancel the whole concept.

This appears to be a very ASW focused design, yet it doesn't have the ability to fit any ASROC.

It has zero ASW capability until you put a helo in the hangar. If it can't take a tactical Mk-41 then you cant load the ASROC. No suprise.

On top of all this you want an internal water-tight boat bay for 4x 10m long class UUV along with handling and recovery equipment for ~20t UUV.

Arguably something that could add more value to the fleet than anything else you could put on it.

Finally you want to rip out the propulsion setup and redesign the ship for IEP which is a large portion of the way to designing a new ship.

Yes, why would you start from the NSC if you want a warship, but here we are.

 

[MadRat]

...
If you wanted a novel ship design maybe you could fit all of this in, but it would be a larger ship than the NSC and you definitely won't be able to retrofit it into the NSC.

The whole point of that laundry list was options. NSC has two hulls on order. Its not a done deal that what comes out in the first two will reflect any others. At this point you are destructing the list. So fair points if you think they cannot fit. Propose options and form a constructive debate.

Legend class is an offshoot of a thirty year old Gibbs & Cox design. NSC was one of the less capable designs. Also realize there has been a fair number of the same family of design loaded down heavier than my proposals. Things like deck strengthening to land Chinooks for supplies is not to be confused with operating them from the ship.

 

[Desertfox]

The minimum requirement for FF(X) should be FF4923 but I would argue need both FF(X), FFG(X), and a LCS based FF(X) design. The barebones NSC frigates can be handed to the CG after more suitable ones are built.

 

[cccgong]

The whole point of that laundry list was options. NSC has two hulls on order. Its not a done deal that what comes out in the first two will reflect any others. At this point you are destructing the list. So fair points if you think they cannot fit. Propose options and form a constructive debate.

Legend class is an offshoot of a thirty year old Gibbs & Cox design. NSC was one of the less capable designs. Also realize there has been a fair number of the same family of design loaded down heavier than my proposals. Things like deck strengthening to land Chinooks for supplies is not to be confused with operating them from the ship.

The only way I can see the NSC derived FFX (which will likely be the first 4-5 ships at minimum) being useful is to use them as ASW and radar pickets for sea skimmers operating on the flanks of convoys with other ships providing AAW + aircrew/naval crew recovery ships. As they won't have the AAW or radars to operate independently or contribute to battlegroups aside from ASW.

However the hull self noise will likely be an issue, so there should be characterization of NSC and see what amount of silencing can be done on the first batch and just hope that this is enough. Then you remove the boat well, add CAPTAS, ASROC on Thypon or similar launchers on the old boat well, and the 12 ESSM behind the gun which is about there's space for on this hull. Maybe you can fit some UUV handling equipment along side the CAPTAS towed array in the old boat well, but I wouldn't count on it.

UUV likely won't be great for blue ocean/deep water ASW unless you seed the whole route with them due to its range. However it would work quite well in straits and choke points in SEA.

I don't think the NSC related ships with heavier loadings like FF4923 were ever fleshed out beyond concepts. They also have a much reduced ranged 8000nm at 10kn. So much less at ~20kn convoy escort speeds.

The minimum requirement for FF(X) should be FF4923 but I would argue need both FF(X), FFG(X), and a LCS based FF(X) design. The barebones NSC frigates can be handed to the CG after more suitable ones are built.

It's a shame they could never get the ASW modules working on LCS, otherwise they would be usable in the ASW role.

Separately there is a large need for a way to get an elevated radar platform for convoys and ships operating alone.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Whether FF(X) can defend itself is relevant. Its a light frigate, but some form of VLS is pretty much minimum requirement for any "FF". Maybe in future it will mean line of sight defences like big lasers vs an "FFG" having any missiles at all. For now everything needs some air defence missiles.

And the difference between an FF and an FFG is the presence of full sized Standards, area defense missiles.

The old FFs still had Sea Sparrows for a while, later replaced by Phalanx CIWS.

It's a shame they could never get the ASW modules working on LCS, otherwise they would be usable in the ASW role.

Modules worked just fine on shore. LCS were just too noisy to be usable in ASW. Someone forgot to specify hull silencing measures.

Separately there is a large need for a way to get an elevated radar platform for convoys and ships operating alone.

That's likely addressable by the DARPA TERN VTOL UAV

 

[MadRat]

In all fairness on the LCS, it really wasn't worse than sonar from two or three decades ago. It is just that the current standards have increased with the threats, Having a bow-mounted sonar in littoral waters seems like a necessity. Let's remember, what we call a sonar is actually a whole suite. Even if its not good enough to track Virginia class subs at 100 miles, its perfectly fine for avoiding obstacles in the shallows and for using Gertrude.

 

[cccgong]

Modules worked just fine on shore. LCS were just too noisy to be usable in ASW. Someone forgot to specify hull silencing measures.

That's likely addressable by the DARPA TERN VTOL UAV

I guess any attempt at doing ASW with the FFX will run into the same issues.

The Tern UAV is a bit over a decade old, with not much else to show, it doesn't seem like it'll be continued. However something like that should work with a 600 lb payload. The question is what the endurance is.

In all fairness on the LCS, it really wasn't worse than sonar from two or three decades ago. It is just that the current standards have increased with the threats, Having a bow-mounted sonar in littoral waters seems like a necessity. Let's remember, what we call a sonar is actually a whole suite. Even if its not good enough to track Virginia class subs at 100 miles, its perfectly fine for avoiding obstacles in the shallows and for using Gertrude.

Regardless it still means it's incapable in the modern day against threats that are generally louder than the Virginia class. So I would bet it would have a pretty hard time of tracking a Virginia. Also I wouldn't use this in the littoral as it's even more venerable than other ships due to a higher ASM and air threat.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Okay, fellas. Let's start nailing down specific baselines for an FFG(X). I propose:

Main Gun Weapon System (GWS) - Bofors 57 mm (2.24") Mark 110 Mod 4 Naval Automatic Gun System (AGS) mounted in a low-RCS stealth cupola atop the fore-deck. 120 rounds ready in the mount; additional rounds can be loaded from below-deck magazines. Mark 110 is operated by remote control from the Gun Console (GC) within the Control Officers Console (COC) of the Mark 160 Gun Computer System (Mark 160 GCS), but can be controlled locally in the gun mount. Mark 160 GCS is capable of direct firing attacks against surface radar and optically tracked targets, as well as indirect firing during Naval Gun Fire Support (NGFS). Alternate: Oto Melara 76 mm/62-cal Super Rapid Compact Naval Gun (aka OTO 76/62 SR) is a high-performance naval gun, offering rapid fire, multi-role capabilities, and advanced ammunition options. Total destructive effect favors the 76mm for larger near-misses, but guided and smart 57mm rounds narrow the gap.

Gun Fire Control - Mark 160 Gun Computer System (Mark 160 GCS), AN/SPQ-9B Multi-Purpose Surface Search and Fire Control radar (aka "Spook 9"), and Mark 20 Mod 1 Electro Optic Sensor System (Mark 20 EOSS). Mark 160 GCS is located in the ship's Combat Information Center (CIC) and serves as both the central fire control brain and primary interface between the Mark 110 GWS, the ship's Command and Decision (C&D) system, and an array of mixed sensors. Within the Combat Information Center (CIC), the Gun Console (GC)—often part of the Control Officer's Console (COC)—acts as the main operator interface for the Mk 160. Mark 160 GCS translates target information into gun aiming orders via the Signal Data Converter/Gun Mount Processor (SDC/GMP) and the precision enables an effective Anti-Ship Missile Defense (ASMD). There are two Mark 20 EOSS aboard, and together these serve three primary functions: EOSS/GWS integration, automatic target detection and tracking, and day/night video surveillance. AN/SPQ-9B is controlled at the COC; the high-fidelity X-Band, pulse-doppler radar provides defense against low altitude (below 2000 ft) surface and air targets such as sea skimming missiles, for either gun fire engagement or navigation. Track While Scan (TWS) mode provides high resolutions in two dimensions for the detection and tracking of more than one thousand objects at or near the surface of the water. The Control Officer operates the AN/SPQ-9B and displays target video on the Plan Position Indicator (PPI), assigns targets to the TWS channels, initiates the desired operating mode, selects the Gun Fire Control Console (GFCC), assigns targets and respective gun mounts to a respective Weapons Control Console (WCC), enables WCC firing circuits, then disables the WCC after engagement. Mark 20 EOSS supports operations including anti-surface and anti-air warfare, spotting and damage assessment, target detection and identification, naval gun fire support, safety check-sight, location/track of man overboard and channel position and navigation. The MT 51 Velocimeter (located on the main gun mount) measures the initial velocity of the round leaving the barrel via a doppler signal.

CIWS - One fore-mounted Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) with the 20 mm M61A2 Vulcan 6-barreled Gatling cannon, or 11-cell SeaRAM for forward and abeam shots. One 21-cell RIM-116C Block 2B Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) in RAM Mark 31 Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS) located high astern for rearward and abeam shots. Both Phalanx CIWS and SeaRAM are autonomous systems which do not need any external information to engage threats. Due to the common mounting, SeaRAM inherits the relatively easy installation characteristics of its gun-based sibling.

Close Range MG - Typhon-mount (Mark 38 Mod 3) Machine Gun System (MGS) located abeam each side, with a TOPLITE gimbal stabilized 25 mm/1" Bushmaster II. The MGS features multi-functional displays in a remote control console, independent electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors, a laser rangefinder, target autotracking, and two ammunition types. Each Mod 3 also features a backup 7.62mm Mark 52 co-axial gun. MGS focuses on robust close-in self defense. Direct-fire defense against small surface craft and as part of a layered protection against missile and drone threats. Distributed to each quadrant, either the 12.7 mm (.50") M2HB Browning Heavy Machine Guns (HMG; with 100 round or 200 round ammo can holder) or MK19 40 mm Grenade belt-fed Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL; with 32 or 48 round ammo cans) on MK93 Mod 4 free-swinging pintle mounts. With adapters the M60/MK43 7.62 mm General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG; with 250 round ammo can), M240 7.62 mm GPMG (with 300 round ammo can), or M249 5.56 mm Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW; 250 round ammo box) can be installed on the MK93 mount as alternative options.

Angle-container Missiles - 8 RGM-184 Naval Strike Missiles (NSM Q) for surface and land strikes, 12 AMRAAM-ER or AIM-9X in six-pack LCHR-derived multi-missile launch containers from NASAMS 3 for air-defense, 8 Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) or 16 Ground Launched StormBreaker (GLSDB2) containers for precision fires land strike, or 24 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles for counter-drone roles; or any combination thereof. Located on the upper weapons deck.

VLS Missiles - Mounted in combination of medial and/or exterior (perimeter) deck spaces. 12/24 RIM-162E Block 2 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) in one or two medially located 6-cell dual-packed Mark 56 Guided Missile Vertical Launching System (GMVLS). Provisional space for an additional two Stanflex modular mission payloads, laterally located on the lower weapons deck perimeter.

Directed Energy Weapons - 60 kW High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) for light speed counter drone (UAS/UUV) capability. LRADs (long-range acoustic devices) to repel pirate attacks by sending warnings and by producing intolerable levels of sound.

Torpedo and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) - Mark 32 surface vessel torpedo triple tubes for the 12.75-inch (324 mm) Mark 54 ASW torpedo. Copperhead-100M reusable unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) delivered by Anduril's Ghost Shark AI-powered extra-large autonomous underwater vehicle (XL-AUV) designed for long-range, persistent, and stealthy surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike missions.

Other Ship Defenses - Two Nulka decoy launchers. Nulka hovers in the air and emits radiofrequency energy to lure the seekers of anti-ship missiles. AN/SLQ-32 Mod 5 electronic warfare suite. Mark 36 Super Rapid Bloom Offboard Countermeasures Chaff and Decoy Launching System (SRBOC aka "Super-R-Boc") short-range Decoy Launching System (DLS) that launches radar or infrared decoys from naval vessels to foil incoming anti-ship missiles. SLQ-32 (with the exception of the (V)4 variant) can automatically fire decoys from the Mark 36 SRBOCs when it detects an anti-ship missile attack. Towed and offboard decoys for submarine torpedo threats.

Communications - Multi-Functional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS). Link-11 and Link-16 tactical data links, enhanced command and control (C2) capabilities to facilitate real-time, secure, and jam-resistant data (voice, data, imagery, and video) sharing with Navy, Joint, and coalition forces. MIDS JTRS enables simultaneous operation of Link 16 and up to three additional advanced networking waveforms, including Tactical Targeting Networking Technology (TTNT) and Flexible Access Secure Transfer (FAST). MIDS JTRS uses software-defined radio technology to update and adapt to future security and networking requirements.

Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Multifunctional Radar - AN/SPS-75 (Giraffe 4A) is a multi-role medium-range AESA surveillance radar system in three dimensions for naval applications. It provides medium range, simultaneous air and surface surveillance and can be employed in a weapon designation role. AN/SPS-75 uses Agile Multi-Beam (AMB), which includes an integrated Command, control and communication (C3) system. This enables AN/SPS-75 to act as the command and control center in an air defense system. AN/SPS-73(V)18 Next Generation Surface Search Radar (NGSSR) enhances safety and situational awareness while it simultaneously performs navigation, surface search, and periscope detection (PDD). While primarily for navigation, it offers, advanced, limited, low-altitude, short-range, situational awareness against surface and aerial threats. NGSSR is a software-configurable, Agile Multi-Beam (AMD) in the X-band, maritime radar designed to replace legacy systems on U.S. Navy surface combatants.

Forecastle Main Mast - The primary Mark 20 EOSS is located above the bridge. AN/SLQ-32C(V)6 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block II; see below for details. AN/UPX-29(V) Interrogator System for electronic Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) air traffic control. AN/URN-32 Combined Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) Antenna and Beacon Transponder to provide azimuth (bearing) and range (distance) information to aircraft. Rapid Deployment Elevation System (RDES) derived telescopic mast that can extend to a point 200 feet above sea level (ASL) with up to 1200 pounds, and has a structural rating for survival in 80 mph winds.

RDES Mounted Sensors - A secondary Mark 20 EOSS is RDES-mounted. Maximum extension allows for direct Line-of-Sight (LOS) of 18.6 miles; this location enhances naval or land-based situational awareness by significantly increasing the sensor's vertical field of regard and horizon LOS. This combination allows for faster, higher-angle target detection, improved horizon scanning, and enhanced identification capabilities. Elevated sensors offer a better view of congested waterways, shorelines, or urban environments. RDES allows the system to be raised or lowered in minutes, enhancing flexibility in fast-paced operational environments.

Electromagnetic Warfare (EW) Suite - AN/SLQ-32C(V)6 SEWIP aka "SEWIP Lite". EW consists of three major subdivisions: electronic attack (EA), electronic protection (EP), and electronic warfare support (ES). Activities used in EW include electro-optical, infrared and radio frequency countermeasures; Electromagnetic (EM) compatibility and deception; radio jamming, radar jamming and deception and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM aka anti-jamming); electronic masking, probing, reconnaissance, and intelligence; electronic security; EW reprogramming; emission control; spectrum management; and wartime reserve modes.

Signature Reduction - Low visibility paints to reduce visual, ultraviolet, and infrared identification. Over 13 dB Radar Cross Section Reduction (RCSR) and similar audible emissions reduction. A 13 dB radar cross-section (RCS) reduction corresponds to more than a ten-fold (95%) decrease in the reflected power of a target, effectively reducing its radar signature by over one order of magnitude. In practical terms, this means a target becomes much harder to detect, as a 13 dB reduction shrinks the detection range significantly to about 5% compared to an untreated object.

Bow-mounted Sonar - AN/SQQ-89(V)15 integrated Undersea Warfare (USW) Combat System Suite. Computer-controlled, bow-mounted AN/SQS-53C ("Kingfisher") high frequency active and passive sonar with the capabilities to search, detect, classify, localize and track undersea contacts, and to engage and evade submarines, mine-like small objects and torpedo threats. The AN/SQS-53C is most effective for shallow water navigation, object avoidance, and mine warfare. AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar (TACTAS) which is a component of the AN/SQQ-89 sonar suite, is a series of hydrophones towed from a cable several thousand feet behind the ship, that is able to passively detect adversary submarines at a very long range. AN/SQR-19 combines active and passive hydrophone arrays for Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) detect and track capability. Additional towed arrays on deployed Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) and/or from a Seahawk helicopter. AN/UQN-4 Sonar Sounding Set (also known as EDO Model 9057) is a digital depth sounder/fathometer for measuring the depth of water from the ship’s keel to the ocean floor for safe operational navigation. Fathometers are operated from all classes of United States (U.S.) Navy surface ships and are considered Mid-Frequency Active (MFA) sonars. AN/WQC-2 (commonly known as "Gertrude" or "The Underwater Telephone") is a hull-mounted transducers or towed-line array utilized as an Underwater Voice Communication (UVC) system used for secure, short-range, two-way, voice, and Morse code communication between submarines, surface vessels, divers, and other underwater vehicles. AN/SQR-19 slated to be eventually replaced by AN/SQR-20 Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA) and its more advanced TB-37U sensors. AN/SQR-20 and TB-37U offers better performance against quiet diesel-electric Submarine Killers (SSKs) in littoral environments, increased reliability, and reduced obsolescence.

Aviation Support - Chinook and Sea Stallion deck load capacity for efficient Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP). Hangar storage for one Seahawk helicopter and distributed deck moorings to secure up to three helicopters on available deck space. AN/URN-32 Combined Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) Antenna and Beacon Transponder to provide azimuth (bearing) and range (distance) information to aircraft. AN/UPX-29(V) Interrogator System for electronic Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) air traffic control.

Propulsion and Primary Power Generation - Combined diesel–electric and gas (CODLAG) system using one reversible controllable-pitch propeller. A single 7,400 kW (9,900 hp) Fairbanks Morse Defense (formerly Rolls-Royce) 20-cylinder MTU 20V 1163 TB93 diesel engine provides the best power efficiency to provide propulsion and an onboard power supply. An additional two Fairbanks Morse Defense (formerly Rolls-Royce) 20-cylinder nForcer FM 175D engines 3,750 kW (5,000 hp at 1,800 rpm) may be called upon to combined for an additional 14.875 MW of power. Main cruise solely requires diesel–electric power; the mechanical drive train is disengaged with clutches. Eliminating the mechanical connection between engines and propellers has several advantages including increased freedom in placement of the engines, acoustical decoupling of the engines from the hull, which makes the ship less noisy, and a reduction in weight and volume. Reserve diesel–electric and alternative power sources can boost speeds temporarily with minimal acoustic increase using two additional reversible controllable-pitch propellers. For higher speeds, the reserve 22 MW (30,000 hp) General Electric LM2500 gas turbine engine - with clutches engaged - powers the main shaft via a cross-connecting gearbox. The LM2500 gas turbine is available to quickly respond to increases in dynamic power demands and it can spool up to full power in under 5 minutes. In an emergency the gas turbine can effective propel the ship on its power alone. Reserve diesel engines may take between 20-30 minutes to bring the them up to an efficient rotational speed, and all three diesel–electrics are necessary for an 18 knot cruise speed. The 7,280 kW (9,760 hp at 1,000 rpm) Fairbanks Morse 16V28/33D STC diesel engine may substitute for the MTU 20V 1163 TB93, but maximum cruise speed will drop a up to half a knot.

Auxiliary Power Generation - Integrated electric propulsion (IEP). Two reserve diesel–electric engine and a gas turbine provide for auxiliary electrical generation to meet dynamic energy demands. Some soft storage capacity for transitioning. Distributed hull-mounted bifacial solar cell (BSC) panels, connected to limited battery storage, boosts the daily electrical generation during fair weather. BSCs may provide between 20-30% of energy demands for daytime travel at cruise speeds. The trash incinerator, or Waste-to-Energy (WtE) system, provides minor electrical generation at a rate of about 500 to 600 kWh of electricity per ton of waste incinerated. Retractable bow thrusters for dock maneuvers.

Operational Speed - 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph) maximum speed. Hull design for cruise speed of 18 knots.

Endurance - Expected range of 12,000 nautical miles (22,000 km; 14,000 mi) at a 16 knot cruise under diesel–electric engine power alone. Provisional storage for 60-75 duty cycles of an expected minimum 150 day deployment. This includes up to 30,000 gallons (125 tons) of drinkable and potable fresh water, volume equivalent to 17 "twenty-foot equivalent unit" (abbreviated TEU; approximately 20,000 cubic feet) of provisional dry storage concealed in weather-tight containers stored under the deck cover space, and an addition 2 TEU (of approximately 2,500 cubic feet) of mixed storage facilities distributed across internal compartments.

Replenishment - Underway replenishment (UNREP - for Solid, Liquid, Ammunition) and VERTREP (for Solid, Ammunition) capable. Supplies may also be delivered through the LARS, telescoping and swiveling davit locations, and mooring access points at the ship fantails.

Child Vessels - Ability to launch and recover a mixture of manned and/or unmanned child vessels (RHIBs, tenders, Ghost Shark UUV, or minisubmarines). An internal boat bay with weather-tight external doors for dry stack storage of up to four 10 meter child vessels (RHIBs/UUVs). One high-sea-state stern launching ramp (LARS aka "float-in garage") for up to one 25 meter boat; designed to launch and recover smaller craft while in motion or in high seas. This LARS is specifically designed to handle one Combatant Craft Medium, Mark1 (CCM). The stern ramp allows for the launch and recovery of boats without the mother vessel having to come to a complete halt. The garage keeps child vessels secured and protected from the elements, as opposed to being stored on an open deck. Mooring for CCM located on ship fantails located near trailing edges along each side of hull. Two boat cradles located above-deck on the stern with capacity for up to 10 meter child vessels facilitates transfers from dry stack storage to the sea surface.

Utility Cranes - One aft-mounted telescoping and swiveling davit (12-ton capacity hydraulic crane), and one 11-ton capacity telescoping and swiveling davit (electrical crane) located inside each side of internal boat bay. Cranes are for launch/recovery of a Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB), UUV, or Combatant Craft Assault (CCA); replenishment; or deployment of sea mines. Weather-tight gangway (narrow passage used to board or disembark ships) connects the LARS well to the center of the ship. Two internal winches on a fixed gantry atop shaft spaces for moving palletized supplies through internal spaces; one of which can be used to transfer up to a 10 meter child vessel from the LARS well to internal boat bay space.

Poke it to pieces.

NSC with an 8-round VLS aft the 57mm for 32x ESSMs guided by the SPS-75 and a Typhon box pair above the boat deck for 8 TLAMs.

Maybe a keel sonar if we can find some SQS-56s in a warehouse somewhere.

 

[Scott Kenny]

NSC with an 8-round VLS aft the 57mm for 32x ESSMs guided by the SPS-75 and a Typhon box pair above the boat deck for 8 TLAMs.

Why are we sticking TLAMs on a frigate?

Maybe a keel sonar if we can find some SQS-56s in a warehouse somewhere.

Crud, just raid the submarine stocks for the wide aperture arrays off the Virginia-class.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Why are we sticking TLAMs on a frigate?

TLAMs are the most important part of an American warship. They're the colonial peacekeeper.

Crud, just raid the submarine stocks for the wide aperture arrays off the Virginia-class.

It doesn't have to be good. It has to avoid underwater rocks and maybe find a diesel or something before it shoots.

FF(X) will never see a day in a major combat zone like the South China Sea at least until the U.S. Navy has run out of supercarriers and Burkes, at which point the U.S. Navy has been defeated, so it will never see a day in major combat because the United States would be forced into a surrender long before that. It might fight the Iranian or Venezuelan Navies, who are not particularly fearsome, but would require a bit more mettle than was demonstrated in Praying Mantis. Not that much more but still.

The CONOPS that defined FFG-7 basically died with the USSR and the birth of real-time surface ship observation in the 1990s though. You can no longer thwart an air raid by simply shooting down a VID maritime patroller like a Fw 200 or a Tu-142.

The air raid will simply not launch until they have VID'ed your surface units and battlegroup positions via satellite these days, which can be purchased commercially easily from companies like ICEYE, making even countries like Saddam's Iraq a potential naval threat (they had Saccades [or Silkworms] and H-6s) against major SAGs. The most important aspect of defending a hypothetical convoy is that it now requires Aegis, and preferably AMDR, with supercarrier support because the same threats that will be used against a CVBG will be used against a convoy to enforce a blockade. Which is why convoys won't be used.

Merchant ships are fast enough to evade attack by submarine outside of chokepoints now and bunching them together makes a convoy an obvious target when you see like four warships moving together with six ULCCs, RO/ROs and CONEX freighters.

So the merchants just get told to follow trade lanes, fly false flags or act as a ghost fleet, and link with escorts into the grey zone for a blockade run. They're fast but they're not that fast and escort will be necessary in the actual combat zone. I guess you can argue it's not a convoy in the sense of just like a quarantine isn't a blockade. There's a matter of distance involved.

Basically everyone assumes there will be these big trans-Pacific operations to interdict supplies when the reality is it's going to be people sending their shipping to Australia and Japan and avoiding Taiwan because it's a combat zone. It'll look more like Ukraine's air travel situation in 2014 than anything else because the war between the US and PRC won't immediately go super hot. It may not even devolve into a world war since the US is unlikely to get Europe to go along with it.

Anyway AIUI the Constellations were a kludged attempt to get something comparable to Burke for half the price. It failed. You can't make "basically a Burke" without paying for "basically a Burke" in price and displacement. By the time the Connies would've stabilized in design they would've been $2 billion a piece or very close to it. So like 80% of a Burke's price for 80% of a Burke's capability. Shocker.

The DON is now trying the opposite approach: make something barely suitable for the Red Sea or anti-ISIS operations/OEF-P/Horn of Africa, and replace the Burkes in AFRICOM, SOUTHCOM, NORTHCOM, EUCOM and CENTCOM with them when the war comes, so INDOPACCOM can have all the resources it needs to prosecute a major regional war without draining our ability to bomb the Middle East with cruise missiles.

People need to stop thinking in terms of FFG-7 and start thinking in terms of the Gowind 3100 or the MEKO 360. That's the best analogy here. The main difference between FF(X) and Gowind or MEKO is that FF(X) will have an actual strike capability in the form of TLAM. FF(X) is just the kind of warship Europeans have been building for years for their far-flung colonial patrols and major exports except America needs actual muscle in that patrol.

FF(X) might not be able to conduct a Shayrat, at least without SSN support, but it can contribute to that mission with 8-16 TLAMs per hull.

tl;dr It's a cheap hull for a navy that now has to choose between losing WW3 or bombing Iran next week in terms of maint skeds.

The USN is very close to the bare minimum to prosecute a major regional war without retreating from entire global areas, it may have already passed this point (we won't know until the missiles start flying), and it needs something to bulk itself up in terms of escorts: two dozen Burkes that could be in INDOPACCOM but are stuck in AFRICOM, EUCOM or SOUTHCOM to sling cruise missiles is a massive loss for PacFleet's air defense, and one that could be better done by cheap little ships with cruise missiles instead.

I also don't like the idea that we need something like a FFG-7 or whatever because it's obvious to me that the war in the Pacific won't look like the North Atlantic or even the WW2 Pacific. Not clear why a rear line convoy escort designed to handle at most one or two intercepts during an engagement is useful when the DDG-51 seems to be the bare minimum to just survive in the theater. Considering Burke is just about the only warship the US can make in quantity, getting a second ship to be built in similar quantity so it can push more Burkes to a theater is a good thing, because it means you're getting more Burke per Burke.