US FF(X) Program

[Kat Tsun]

I guess simplifying is your problem. I want facts not hot winds in my sail.

Fascinating. Anyway...

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

Why? The baseline is NSC.

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.

It'll be whatever NSC has.

Oto Melara 76 mm/62-cal Super Rapid Compact Naval Gun

Never going to happen. The Navy has standardized on the 57mm. So has USCG. There's no point to change it now.

Gun Fire Control -

Is this AI generated text?

CIWS - One fore-mounted

It'll be a single Mk 15 aft above the hangar. The 57mm covers the front sector just fine.

Close Range MG

The NSC has four mounting points (two port two stbd) for .50 cals. There will be a Mk 38 Mod 4 too.

Angle-container Missiles -

Entirely possible since the boat ramp will be replaced with some sort of weird deck girder thing for mounting boxes. NSM, Mk 141, Hellfire, etc. Whatever you want, really, provided you pay for it. That's always the funny thing with modularity: these things never get paid for.

VLS Missiles

Nope.

Directed Energy Weapons

Nah.

Mark 32 surface vessel torpedo triple tubes

Useless. They might be there though.

Two Nulka decoy launchers.

They're next to the exhaust IIRC.

Communications

Radios, believe it or not, will be present!

Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Multifunctional Radar

It's whatever LCS has so I think it's SPS-77. Could change!

Your AI is wrong by the way the SPS-75 is the TRS-3D.

Electromagnetic Warfare (EW) Suite

It will have the new two panel SEWIPs.

Bow-mounted Sonar

Nah. Not yet anyway.

Aviation Support - Chinook and Sea Stallion deck load capacity

Still the most British concept in the universe, Chinooks are for the land, silly Brits!

Propulsion and Primary Power Generation

There will be engines, indeed!

Child Vessels -

They're calling it the most Indian English LLM generation yet.

Utility Cranes

There will be davits for a RHIB.

Poke it to pieces.

You don't seem to understand the purpose of FF(X) or the intent of the SSCs at present because you seem to think that this information isn't known? I can't really discern what your hangup here is.

Anyway, everyone knows what the FF(X) will look like: The long lead items for the first ship have been in place for several years at Pascagoula! The Coast Guard bought and paid for them, as I understand. At some point the Congress allocated funds for initiating long leads for the 12th WMSL, but I believe that one fell through, or it's all also sitting in warehouse with the ex-Friedman's long leads.

What isn't known is how well it will perform in sea trials (i.e. is Pascagoula going to need to go through a major learning curve, since it's been many many years since they built any NSCs to completion, and nor do we want propulsion casualties and gearing issues seen in LCS-1) and whether DON and the Congress will continue supporting the program. It's entirely possible the Congress will demand, as many people in this thread seem to want, a million dumb stupid missiles and big guns on it and ruin the whole thing.

No one knows how many FF(X) will be built but the hope is roughly between "more than two" and "1:1 for all the LCS and the Connies". Which is why the estimates are so wide because the Navy has basically said "yeah we'll pay for the two you have the parts for and see where it goes" unless they don't do that.

Admittedly, TIL, as I thought their intention was to use ESSM in surface to surface mode, not stretch it another meter.

Everything about ESSM is purely speculative but the general idea is something like the Navy buys a couple FF(X), offers some changes, and somehow a few ESSM are squeaked into the hull to provide capability similar to European patrol frigates like the Gowind or MEKO. This will satisfy non-Westpac theaters like the Caribbean and Red Sea just fine. Mason managed to live through the Houthis firing twice with "basically ESSMs and chaff" without incident if we discount the couple of Standards she expended.

Surface to surface will be whatever the Navy wants to put on the FF(X)'s fantail. That could be Hellfires, Harpoons, NSMs, TLAMs, etc.

The minimum requirement for FF(X) should be

At this point, to exist. The minimum requirement for a Navy escort is to exist. NAVSEA's attempts at bringing escorts into existence over the past 30 years have been comedic and tragic. It's a bit harrowing because there's a real possibility the Navy will simply buy one or two FF(X) and cancel the program because it doesn't like the ship for some reason.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There are dozens of things saying the USN doesn't have enough escorts for Westpac given the threat environment of China is increasingly dangerous to shipping and unlikely to be survivable for ships less well equipped than a Burke. The Navy needs about 75 Burkes to be available and it has 76. That really means it's something like 60 Burkes at any one time if you really press the matter. Usually it's closer to 50.

End goal at the moment is something like 100 Burkes or so. That will likely increase if there are more delays (there will be more delays) as the Flight Is run out of SLEP time.

If the Navy has 75 Burkes, they only have 25 out at sea. 25 more are in refit after a deployment, and 25 are in workups getting ready to go out to sea.

If you're lucky you could surge most of those 25 in workups, but not all of them at the same time. I'd guess maybe half of them could be surged immediately to less-dangerous places to allow the Burkes in that place to go to the fight. But you'd still be looking at probably 3-4 months before all the rest of the Burkes could surge. (Note that the second "half" is going to be staggered all to heck, as the different ships all entered refit at different times)

And then you'd be looking at an operational cycle of 12-16 months out at sea and then 6-8 in refit-and-workups in wartime.

Admittedly, TIL, as I thought their intention was to use ESSM in surface to surface mode, not stretch it another meter.

My thought on the angled launchers was on the carriers in place of the ESSM box launchers (Mk29s?), as it would allow for carrying SM2s and SM6s.

 

[MadRat]

Kat Tsun,

You need to cease with the ad hominem. I am not 'Brit' nor did AI generate my content. The nonsensical 'Indian English LLM generation'. You made some statements and have neither given sources nor justified the statements logically. Debate doesn't have to be your superpower, but at least genuinely participate.

And get your facts straight. You said it is getting AN/SPS-77. Legend already had AN/SPS-75, so if uses an LCS based AN/SPS-77 radar then its going backwards. Freedom used the same. AN/SPS-80 (TRS-4D) was slated to be on the next batch of LCS before it got cancelled. Sea Giraffe 4A has Gallium Nitride (GaN). Independence ships used the AN/SPS-77 in versions (V)1, (V)2, and V(4); AN/SPS-77 is also called Sea Giraffe AMB. The Sea Giraffe 4A and 4FF are higher end and use S-band, where the AMB is C-band and doesn't give the picture necessary for the range and best use of ESSM or AMRAAM-ER. It certainly would handicap any ship that carried SM-6.

You also said, "There are dozens of CSIS wargames and GAO documents online." You can see the CSIS farcical wargames about Taiwan from 2025. https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazon...df?VersionId=nr5Hn.RQ.yI2txNNukU7cyIR2QDF1oPp It's horribly done. I sure hope they spent a little effort on the others. The methodology is a wee bit lacking. And we only have to mildly wonder why NAVSEA cannot find its direction when strategic stinktanks like this exist to drive policy.

 

[DJK]

Fixed angle launchers do exist and have for many years.

BAE Systems awarded Next Generation Launcher design contract - Naval News

BAE Systems was awarded a contract to design the Next Generation Evolved SeaSparrow Missile Launch System (NGELS).

www.navalnews.com

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/adaptable-deck-launcher

View: https://youtu.be/YWZ6xZHsQMo

It wasn't worth arguing something that obvious...

BAE have been trying to sell the concept since then (well, before then according to your link), that doesn't mean there was actual hardware in 2018.

Perhaps they weren't successful because nobody had tried to replace a FFG combatant class with a coastguard vessel, therefore didn't need to use deck space instead of VLS. Probably will depend on priorities in thd end, with ADL getting swapped out for NSM launchers as missions change. However I can see the logic of putting old Harpoons onto useless ships, matching the weapon to the likely threat. AShMs are kind of a defensive weapon in my view anyway.

Maybe use this ship as a platform to test new and better close-in air defence.

 

[Kat Tsun]

If the Navy has 75 Burkes, they only have 25 out at sea. 25 more are in refit after a deployment, and 25 are in workups getting ready to go out to sea.

I said they'd have 50-60, yes. The Navy needs about 100 Burkes to achieve its stated requirement of 75 mission capable LSCs. It'll also need about 50-60 SSCs to do the job of colonial policing during WW3 when the LSCs are broadly unavailable for tasks outside of INDOPACCOM.

No prizes for how many Burkes been ordered and how many FF(X) that HII wants the Navy to order.

If you're lucky you could surge most of those 25 in workups, but not all of them at the same time. I'd guess maybe half of them could be surged immediately to less-dangerous places to allow the Burkes in that place to go to the fight.

The hope is there is a latent period where the PRC isn't engaging US forces directly in Westpac from the get-go. The problem is that might result in a fait accompli like 2014 did, if the PRC is actually more competent on the ground than imagined, or a very long time for Taiwan to wait it out. Neither are good, but they're better than engaging the PLAN from the start, and if the PRC can annex the ROC quickly it might actually push the rest of Asia to huddle around the United States for protection.

Otherwise it'll be a chaotic and calamitous situation for 3rd Fleet to get organized, very much like 1942, and 7th Fleet might just all die.

But you'd still be looking at probably 3-4 months before all the rest of the Burkes could surge. (Note that the second "half" is going to be staggered all to heck, as the different ships all entered refit at different times)

This is why people in the Beltway are saying Taiwan needs to hold out for about six months, which is about how long it will be before 3rd Fleet can rescue them, assuming that's even an option considered.

And then you'd be looking at an operational cycle of 12-16 months out at sea and then 6-8 in refit-and-workups in wartime.

The war likely won't last that long thankfully.

Most folks think it'll be 1-6 months tops before the nukes start flying. Then it's figuring out how to fight an intercontinental war under nuclear conditions, both tactical and regional/operational. Nobody's done that one before, so it'll be very exciting for the problem solvers, and it might not even result in a thermonuclear apocalypse even if national ABMs are absent. Which they probably will be, since Golden Dome's SBI portion won't be operational until the mid-2030s, and whatever China is making is likely similar plus or minus a few years.

The hope is that by 2030 we'll have enough production scaled and a large enough conventional weapon inventory that the nukes won't be needed. 2030 is a long way's away though.

If the war comes sooner than later, the likelihood of theater nuclear use is higher, but it's less dire than it was three years ago.

And get your facts straight.

You clearly have no idea what FF(X) is or what it's supposed to do. You don't even know what radar it has. Here is a PR diagram:



A lot of this is notional still, but the sensor fit is pretty locked in, since SPS-77 won the Navy's heart.

If the LUSV (or whatever it's called this week) gets bodied by budget concerns then the FF(X) will need MK70 and ASW though so the NSMs are still up in the air. The main thing the Navy is saving by using NSC's hull is it doesn't need to try to figure out how to do naval architecture (again) because NAVSEA divested itself of its surface combatant NAME capability in the late 1990s or early 2000s to favor carriers and submarines.

The cool part about the flexible weapon station though is that it has all the neat modularity of the LCS without eating internal hull volume. So it can take stuff like Mk 141s, NSM, Mk 70, etc. without issues.

You can see the CSIS farcical wargames

Well, if that's your opinion, then I suppose that's your opinion, and no amount of sense or reason will penetrate you. Carry on.

CSIS isn't the only one suggesting such scenarios, but the blockade scenario is a definite possibility, as is the 2023 CSIS wargame.

 

[MadRat]

This seems relevant in Legend class survivability. Copied from reddit user barath_s

"The Legend class cutter was built with an eye on damage control and level 1 survivability standards. There are multiple levels to these standards, and no specific equipment per se that defines it.... Per below : https://research.chalmers.se/publication/544715/file/544715_Fulltext.pdf

Survivability level 1: Sustained ability to rescue personnel and prevent complete loss. Minimum remaining ship functions: 50% of the pump capacity; 75% of the regular crew; and 50% of the life rafts.

Survivability level 2: Sustained ability for mobility: Minimum remaining ship functions: survivability level 1; 50% of the propulsion capacity; 50% of the rudder capacity; and 50% of the electric power or emergency power.

Survivability level 3: Sustained self-defence capabilities. Minimum remaining ship functions: survivability level 1 and 2; and 50% of self-defence systems (with electrical power, associated sensors and target systems and ammunition storage).

Survivability level 4: Sustained fighting capability. Minimum remaining ship functions: survivability level 1 and 2, 100% of command and control, 100% of communications, 50% of weapon systems and associated sensors and ammunition storage; and navigation.

The paper is useful in considering what is most important in each capability for a generic frigate . Also PDF pages 17 onwards in below also talk about what they consider ..."

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/Directives/09000%20General%20Ship%20Design%20and%20Support/09-00%20General%20Ship%20Design%20Support/9070.1B.pdf

 

[MadRat]

You clearly have no idea what FF(X) is or what it's supposed to do. You don't even know what radar it has. Here is a PR diagram...
<image snipped for brevity>
A lot of this is notional still, but the sensor fit is pretty locked in, since SPS-77 won the Navy's heart.

They said Legend class would share 90% commonality with NSC, but there are at least three major changes. The radar from the December press release does say AN/SPS-77. It is substantially weaker than AN/SPS-75. But it would allow them to run on just the two diesels in cruise and still run it without dropping into a lower power mode, so there is a sound reason behind it if they did choose this. That leaves the complete power of the LM2500 gas turbine available for sprints and emergencies. They did include the launch and recovery ramp for rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) operations. They added two 30mm gun turrets and swapped Phalanx for the 21-cell Mark 49 RAM launcher. And there may be an additional 16 Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) or 48 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. And not one but two AN/SLQ-32C(V)6 "SEWIP Lite" systems. That's more than 10% difference.

Well, if that's your opinion, then I suppose that's your opinion, and no amount of sense or reason will penetrate you. Carry on.
CSIS isn't the only one suggesting such scenarios, but the blockade scenario is a definite possibility, as is the 2023 CSIS wargame.

If you digest their wargame a little bit they announce a bunch of pawn pieces and then ignore about 40% of them which clearly were defined within the field of play. It just doesn't logically make sense. And its written where they forced an illogical outcome by ignoring any players such as the PLA. Seems pretty stupid. So yeah, unless you want to cite something better I am sure more than than myself would like to see it. You brought it up, so enlighten us.

 

[Kat Tsun]

They said Legend class would share 90% commonality with NSC, but there are at least three major changes.

A radar is not a major change. It's an equipment fit. A major change would be raising the survivability level or changing to CODAD.

If it doesn't involve cutting holes in the bulkheads, or arranging for redundant power cabling, it's not a big change. That killed FFG-62.

so there is a sound reason behind it if they did choose this.

It was entirely because of economics and the Navy's collective feelings towards the TRS-3D/4 series that constitutes the SPS-75 AIUI. SPS-77 and -75 both meet the requirement for the SSC's multi-function radars so there's no functional difference between the two.

And not one but two AN/SLQ-32C(V)6 "SEWIP Lite" systems. That's more than 10% difference.

External equipment fit isn't a weakness NAVSEA has. Pretty much every Arleigh Burke in the fleet has a slightly different electronics fit.

 

[MadRat]

A radar is not a major change. It's an equipment fit. A major change would be raising the survivability level or changing to CODAD.
If it doesn't involve cutting holes in the bulkheads, or arranging for redundant power cabling, it's not a big change. That killed FFG-62.

It was entirely because of economics and the Navy's collective feelings towards the TRS-3D/4 series that constitutes the SPS-75 AIUI. SPS-77 and -75 both meet the requirement for the SSC's multi-function radars so there's no functional difference between the two.

Sea Giraffe 4FF uses about 1.5 kW over Sea Giraffe AMB. The economics is actually a minor factor. The 4FF is a 360-degree coverage whereas the AMB is a rotating array. No moving parts is an advantage when it comes to long term ownership. The rotating array has to be mechanically maintained and that means shutting the system down and physically inspecting parts for wear. If one array on the 4FF goes down, you may only have one section of the sky that's blind. If the AMB has something go down, it is all down. Then you have range issues. The AMB only covers about 20% of the volume as the 4FF. For slightly more upfront costs you have a substantially better sensor. Over the long term maintenance the 4FF and AMB will not have too dissimilar costs to justify the cheaper radar. And I didn't bring up AMB's weakness in bouncing off the weather versus the lower frequency of the 4FF busting through them.

 

[CordyB]

Sea Giraffe 4FF uses about 1.5 kW over Sea Giraffe AMB. The economics is actually a minor factor. The 4FF is a 360-degree coverage whereas the AMB is a rotating array. No moving parts is an advantage when it comes to long term ownership. The rotating array has to be mechanically maintained and that means shutting the system down and physically inspecting parts for wear. If one array on the 4FF goes down, you may only have one section of the sky that's blind. If the AMB has something go down, it is all down. Then you have range issues. The AMB only covers about 20% of the volume as the 4FF. For slightly more upfront costs you have a substantially better sensor. Over the long term maintenance the 4FF and AMB will not have too dissimilar costs to justify the cheaper radar. And I didn't bring up AMB's weakness in bouncing off the weather versus the lower frequency of the 4FF busting through them.

Would I be correct in assuming the higher powered Sea Giraffe 4FF would be a much bigger target for the Chinese equivalent on the USN longer range Advanced Emission Suppression Missile (ASEM) just put out to tender, aiming for a production rate of 300 ASEM per year in just two years with guidance on the missile provided by a seeker head with a home on emission mode found with most ARM's covering a wide swathe of electronic frequencies, GPS and IN.

 

[MadRat]

Would I be correct in assuming the higher powered Sea Giraffe 4FF would be a much bigger target for the Chinese equivalent on the USN longer range Advanced Emission Suppression Missile (ASEM) just put out to tender, aiming for a production rate of 300 ASEM per year in just two years with guidance on the missile provided by a seeker head with a home on emission mode found with most ARM's covering a wide swathe of electronic frequencies, GPS and IN.

Both radars are LPI. Besides. anti-radiation missiles (ARM) do much better against stationary targets. An incoming ARM can be intercepted like an anti-ship missile in any case. Also realize the high frequency navigation radar is what guns will be steered with to take out incoming ARM. The rotating radar would have to concentrate on it and give up its rotation to track it either way, which the 4FF would not. If the AMB was fixed arrays I'd feel much better about it, even with its short range. It's fine for a cutter to use, but not the best for a blue water warship.

 

[DJK]

Both radars are LPI. Besides. anti-radiation missiles (ARM) do much better against stationary targets. An incoming ARM can be intercepted like an anti-ship missile in any case. Also realize the high frequency navigation radar is what guns will be steered with to take out incoming ARM. The rotating radar would have to concentrate on it and give up its rotation to track it either way, which the 4FF would not. If the AMB was fixed arrays I'd feel much better about it, even with its short range. It's fine for a cutter to use, but not the best for a blue water warship.

Isn't the newer model of AMB the Sea Giraffe 1X? I think that one has an option of fixed arrays. Looks like some ships use the 1X to control guns, never heard about nav radars controlling gunfire but these days you want to fire guns at manoeuvring air targets anyway.

 

[Ainen]

For slightly more upfront costs you have a substantially better sensor.

Slightly is several times (~3) the price, ~2 weight and power.

Both radars are LPI.

LPI modes are not high power modes in the first place, and come at significant performance penalty.
LPI also isn't absolute, and should be measured case by case.

Overall, there are many ways how to improve performance of rearline ship to the point of insolvancy(=failing yet another program). Fitting a magnificent sensor suit against some of the threats it's not meant to face is certainly one of them.

 

[MadRat]

Isn't the newer model of AMB the Sea Giraffe 1X? I think that one has an option of fixed arrays. Looks like some ships use the 1X to control guns, never heard about nav radars controlling gunfire but these days you want to fire guns at manoeuvring air targets anyway.

The AN/SPQ-9 does both functions.

US Navy exercises AN/SPQ-9B option with Leonardo DRS - Naval News

Leonardo DRS has been awarded a $30.45 million firm-fixed-price modification to a previously awarded contract for the production, fabrication, inspection, testing, and delivery of AN/SPQ-9B shipborne radar systems for the US Navy.

www.navalnews.com

 

[joshjosh]

FY27 PB requests 1 FF(X) SCN at $1.4B

 

[TomS]

FY27 PB requests 1 FF(X) SCN at $1.4B

And we're saving money over repeat FFGs how?

 

[Felocie]

And we're saving money over repeat FFGs how?

Because FF(X) is not an FFG(X) successor, it is a Cyclone successor. I’d wager FFG(X) will be procured in greater numbers once the first two are a “proven” design. We’re lying if we honestly try to claim FF(X) doesn’t have a role within fleet architecture tbh

 

[yeetmahboi]

I’d wager FFG(X) will be procured in greater numbers once the first two are a “proven” design.

Sure hope it’d be so. It’s two perfectly capable hull, all R&D and tooling paid for.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Sure hope it’d be so. It’s two perfectly capable hull, all R&D and tooling paid for.

That's assuming the FFG(X) actually floats after all the weight gain from the design alterations.

 

[Felocie]

That's assuming the FFG(X) actually floats after all the weight gain from the design alterations.

I know there is a lot of misinformed speculation about FFG(X) but honestly the whole “it won’t even float” is my favourite. I mean, of the changes 80% were FMM asking to change less and 20% were NAVSEA lessening the demand from the platform per testimony to congress. I’d love to understand how that translates to “so overweight it won’t float”. I know independent research is hard and parroting talking points is easier but it gets to a point

 

[MadRat]

Constellation once it goes through its paces should silence critics. The timing for anticipated use is way past is the bigger issue. I think we need to order some gap fillers. FF(X) too will be late to the party.

 

[TomS]

Because FF(X) is not an FFG(X) successor, it is a Cyclone successor.

Not according to the Navy.

It's also far too big for the inshore role the Cyclones filled. If we wanted to replace the PCs, we'd be getting a version of the Coast Guard Fast Response Cutter.

 

[Cifu]

Because FF(X) is not an FFG(X) successor, it is a Cyclone successor. I’d wager FFG(X) will be procured in greater numbers once the first two are a “proven” design. We’re lying if we honestly try to claim FF(X) doesn’t have a role within fleet architecture tbh

Still overpriced if we looks how much cost a British, French, Italian, etc. comparable ship (well, no, they are much more capable ships), even the first hull (Type 31, Paolo Thaon di Revel , Amiral Monarc'h, etc.).

 

[Felocie]

Not according to the Navy.

I think what you’re actually saying is “not according to Phelan”, the same uneducated fool who claimed DDG(X) had to be cancelled as they couldn’t incorporate hypersonic weapons on the ship. The Navy first requested something akin to FF(X) around the same time as the SSC program (derived from LCS). It was not funded, presumably due to the GWOT, and eventually SSC was succeeded by a program of very different scope, FFG(X). This does not mean the FF(X) gap in fleet architecture was filled

It's also far too big for the inshore role the Cyclones filled. If we wanted to replace the PCs, we'd be getting a version of the Coast Guard Fast Response Cutter.

I was focused more on the patrol and presence element than the inshore element. Replacing ships isn’t exactly a zero sum game or Spruance would’ve been succeeded by something akin to COEA 3C1 instead of DDG-1000

Still overpriced if we looks how much cost a British, French, Italian, etc. comparable ship (well, no, they are much more capable ships), even the first hull (Type 31, Paolo Thaon di Revel , Amiral Monarc'h, etc.).

Debatable, we don’t even know where the 1.4 billion in funding is going yet. It strikes me as highly unlikely, if not impossible, that a mid production run FF(X) costs 1.4 billion a pop

 

[Scott Kenny]

I know there is a lot of misinformed speculation about FFG(X) but honestly the whole “it won’t even float” is my favourite. I mean, of the changes 80% were FMM asking to change less and 20% were NAVSEA lessening the demand from the platform per testimony to congress. I’d love to understand how that translates to “so overweight it won’t float”. I know independent research is hard and parroting talking points is easier but it gets to a point

You do know that it was roughly 1000 tons overweight, right?

 

[DWG]

Still overpriced if we looks how much cost a British, French, Italian, etc. comparable ship (well, no, they are much more capable ships), even the first hull (Type 31, Paolo Thaon di Revel , Amiral Monarc'h, etc.).

Wrong comparators, the Type 31s, Thaon di Revels and Amiral Ronarc'hs are all GP frigates and in theory a step down in both size and capability from FFG(X). The actual comparable first-line ASW platforms are Type 26 and the FREMM ASWs (unsurprisingly given FFG(X) is an Americanized FREMM ASW).

 

[Felocie]

You do know that it was roughly 1000 tons overweight, right?

Not sure how that proves the end product won’t float? They’re still completing the thing so obviously FMM and the DoN believe it’s workable.

FMM also delivered every single LCS-1 they built overweight. Makes you wonder how they’re even still receiving orders !

 

[Cifu]

Wrong comparators, the Type 31s, Thaon di Revels and Amiral Ronarc'hs are all GP frigates and in theory a step down in both size and capability from FFG(X). The actual comparable first-line ASW platforms are Type 26 and the FREMM ASWs (unsurprisingly given FFG(X) is an Americanized FREMM ASW).

We are talking about the FF(X), not the FFG(X)...
The FF(X) are inferior compared to the Type 31, Thaon di Revels and Amiral Ronarc'h, yet it's first hull cost much more than them.

 

[DWG]

We are talking about the FF(X), not the FFG(X)...
The FF(X) are inferior compared to the Type 31, Thaon di Revels and Amiral Ronarc'h, yet it's first hull cost much more than them.

My mistake, I shouldn't post when in a rush, and I'd completely agree wrt FF(X) rather than FFG(X), which is even more the wrong design than it was a month ago.

 

[DJK]

Because FF(X) is not an FFG(X) successor, it is a Cyclone successor. I’d wager FFG(X) will be procured in greater numbers once the first two are a “proven” design. We’re lying if we honestly try to claim FF(X) doesn’t have a role within fleet architecture tbh

1.4B for a Cyclone successor lol... Ok so maybe thats what a patrol vessel looks like in the pacific, but be honest and admit its an OPV and will be tasked accordingly. Trying to tack Mk-70 llaunchers onto an OPV because you couldn't design a FFG isn't just hilarious, it shows a disconnect between requirements and procurement.

We are talking about the FF(X), not the FFG(X)...
The FF(X) are inferior compared to the Type 31, Thaon di Revels and Amiral Ronarc'h, yet it's first hull cost much more than them.

Their could have been a competition for a lower tier frigate, whether a GP or more limited ASW version. Navy would have had to figure out requirements and how it fits in with fleet structure and various CONOPS, and probably would have it coming online as an eventual LCS replacement. That would have been a logical way forward. And it probably would have looked more like a Type31 than a Legend.

Funny thing, with all the generals being fired, shouldn't Phelan have been the first on the chopping block?

 

[TomS]

1.4B for a Cyclone successor lol... Ok so maybe thats what a patrol vessel looks like in the pacific, but be honest and admit its an OPV and will be tasked accordingly. Trying to tack Mk-70 llaunchers onto an OPV because you couldn't design a FFG isn't just hilarious, it shows a disconnect between requirements and procurement.

Their could have been a competition for a lower tier frigate, whether a GP or more limited ASW version. Navy would have had to figure out requirements and how it fits in with fleet structure and various CONOPS, and probably would have it coming online as an eventual LCS replacement. That would have been a logical way forward. And it probably would have looked more like a Type31 than a Legend.

Funny thing, with all the generals being fired, shouldn't Phelan have been the first on the chopping block?

Phelan is a presidential appointee, and I doubt Hegseth can fire him on his own initiative.

But also, Hegseth seems to not care at all about the Navy. He's all about his own personal grievances with the Army.

 

[johnpjones1775]

will yall stop making shit up?
The FFX is not a cyclone successor. Not even remotely.

 

[Scott Kenny]

will yall stop making shit up?
The FFX is not a cyclone successor. Not even remotely.

By hull classification tags, it's a Knox-class successor.

 

[johnpjones1775]

By hull classification tags, it's a Knox-class successor.

Sure, but in reality even without putting anything fancy on the aft platform it’s a replacement for the OHPs.
When you include options for that platform it is much more capable than they were.

 

[TomS]

By hull classification tags, it's a Knox-class successor.

But not by capability.

The Knox had a big hull sonar, a VDS (later a towed array), and weapons for ASW engagements. FF(X) Flight 1 gets no ASW capacity at all, AFAICT, except arguably the helo.

Edit: The closest actual analogue to the FF(X) I can think of would be the old Tacoma PG/PFs from WW2. Notably, those were all actually manned by the Coast Guard and were transferred to the Coast Guard after the war.

 

[greedo]

Sure, but in reality even without putting anything fancy on the aft platform it’s a replacement for the OHPs.
When you include options for that platform it is much more capable than they were.

OHPs had Standard, Phalanx, ASROC, two Seahawks, and much better sub hunting gear than the FF(x) will have. And like the LCS, I'd much rather have an integrated weapon system than crap bolted onto the back, or modules that may never arrive.

 

[johnpjones1775]

OHPs had Standard, Phalanx, ASROC, two Seahawks, and much better sub hunting gear than the FF(x) will have. And like the LCS, I'd much rather have an integrated weapon system than crap bolted onto the back, or modules that may never arrive.

OHPs by the time they decommed has absolutely 0 missile capability.

They had a 76mm gun, phalanx, SVTT and mk38 mod2.

 

[Felocie]

1.4B for a Cyclone successor lol... Ok so maybe thats what a patrol vessel looks like in the pacific, but be honest and admit its an OPV and will be tasked accordingly.

This is such a bad faith argument. DDG-100 succeeded the FFG-7s in role too but I wouldn't compare the actual DDG-1000 platform to an FFG-7. It's just immature to act like I'm trying to claim something I'm obviously not. The fact of the matter is that FF(X) provides a good patrol and ASW lilypad capability which the USN can make use of. Is it the worlds greatest ship? No, but war canoes also have a role to fill within the USN

Trying to tack Mk-70 llaunchers onto an OPV because you couldn't design a FFG isn't just hilarious, it shows a disconnect between requirements and procurement.

Typhon is an example of a containerized system, if we think logically there are at least 3 other containerized systems which could be useful, the least of which is COTS containerized CAPTAS IV that could take its place.

By hull classification tags, it's a Knox-class successor.

Hull classification is a pretty low bar lol

OHPs had Standard, Phalanx, ASROC, two Seahawks, and much better sub hunting gear than the FF(x) will have.

First of all FFG-7 did not have ASROC, it's sonar was incapable of utilizing the system. Secondly what gives you the impression FF(X) is an OHP successor?

 

[johnpjones1775]

This is such a bad faith argument. DDG-100 succeeded the FFG-7s in role too but I wouldn't compare the actual DDG-1000 platform to an FFG-7. It's just immature to act like I'm trying to claim something I'm obviously not. The fact of the matter is that FF(X) provides a good patrol and ASW lilypad capability which the USN can make use of. Is it the worlds greatest ship? No, but war canoes also have a role to fill within the USN

Typhon is an example of a containerized system, if we think logically there are at least 3 other containerized systems which could be useful, the least of which is COTS containerized CAPTAS IV that could take its place.

Hull classification is a pretty low bar lol

First of all FFG-7 did not have ASROC, it's sonar was incapable of utilizing the system. Secondly what gives you the impression FF(X) is an OHP successor?

Greedo was responding to me.
I said FF(X) would have more capability than OHPs did when decommissioned

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is such a bad faith argument. DDG-100 succeeded the FFG-7s in role too but I wouldn't compare the actual DDG-1000 platform to an FFG-7.

No, DDG-1000 replaced the Spruance-class. You know, the high-end ASW warship over the FFG-7s low-end ASW warship.