US FF(X) Program - DISCUSSION

They're trying to get a boat in the water in the next 24-30 months my guy. That means an unmodified NSC for the first few hulls. HII is going to be running those poor dockhands ragged in the heat already.

Nobody knows what the next hulls will look like but there are lots of ideas. Expect the least effort, and lowest cost, to prevail. Which means favoritism for existing weapons, ordnance and their mounts, like the 57mms and the Harpoon. It depends on what will be funded but FF(X) could end up being anywhere from 12 to 50+ ships right now.
I mean it will be modified. Very lightly, but they will be modified.

Why would they magically decide to put harpoons on these exactly when every other SSC gets NSM?

The ADL utilizes munitions that already exist…mk110 no shit, it’s the only actual option.
 
If the US Navy wanted a Blohm+Voss MEKO 200 or 300 (doesn't exist beyond paper but 360 does), or Gowind 3100, seems like they could have done it with a Legend frame. There is nothing remarkable about them. If we want lightweight but high endurance boats we can just build Heritage class cutters for the USN. I guess your point escapes me. Kind of like saying newer FF(X) might get Harpoons so that older DDGs can get NSM. During a service cycle, sure, but not just to pass the Harpoons down. That would mean taking a ship out of service to give it an upgrade of a redundant system for surface warfare just to saddle a new ship with hand me downs. I have every faith American shipyards can build what we need. What our shipyards need are less bureaucrats and more doers. Every layer of bureaucracy is a cost.

I wish more people practiced Laconic Philosophy, it would save us circular conversations that seem to expand on no concrete point.
 
So you’re pulling shit out of your ass, got it.

Lol.

It's been implied PR that the purpose is to allow COCOMs to shift Burkes to INDOPACCOM in wartime. That's the actual purpose of FF(X). FFG(X) was an attempt to make a minimum viable INDOPACCOM ship, under the mistaken belief that DDG-51 was gold plated, which it isn't.

That's as simple as I can put it. I would suggest you peruse any number of articles linked in the news threads on this very forum about it.

If the US Navy wanted a Blohm+Voss MEKO 200 or 300 (doesn't exist beyond paper but 360 does), or Gowind 3100, seems like they could have done it with a Legend frame.

Not in 24-30 months, and it took realizing that DDG-51 is the actual baseline for an INDOPACCOM escort to fathom the idea, at least bureaucratically.

I guess your point escapes me.

Unfortunate. I literally cannot simplify it further for you.

Kind of like saying newer FF(X) might get Harpoons so that older DDGs can get NSM. During a service cycle, sure, but not just to pass the Harpoons down.

That's likely exactly what will happen until NSM proliferates to the point that it can be spared for FF(X).

That'll take a while given they make about 50 a year right now for the US (to be fair that's just JSM IIRC but JSM is an NSM), and might bump that up to 100-200 a year, while LRASM is hitting 1,000. Much like how every DDG-51 in service is slightly different in sensors and ESM, every FF(X) will likely end up with a odd menagerie of ordnance, with some having NSMs, some having Harpoons, some having Hellfires and some having nothing at all.

It's not particularly important because FF(X) is more important in that it allows a Burke to be freed up to go die in the South China Sea. Americans just need to get over the idea that ships are some special super shiny thing and realize that they're as expendable as army battalions. It's something the actual people in DON have done but it's unclear why the public at large can't.

That would mean taking a ship out of service to give it an upgrade of a redundant system for surface warfare just to saddle a new ship with hand me downs.

No, it would be done when it's convenient, like if a ship being stripped of Mk 141s for NSMs and is doing this at the same time as an FF(X) in overhaul for weapons and sensor refit, they might put the Mk 141s on the FF(X) so that one will have Mk 141s. The one next to it might have NSMs or Hellfire-R.

Standardization simply doesn't matter much for such small amounts of ships and ordnance, and it's not like they're going to stop making Hellfires, NSMs, or Harpoons. They're even restarting the SLAM-ER production line.

I have every faith American shipyards can build what we need.

DON doesn't. Congress doesn't. DOD as a whole doesn't. They're just stuck in a weird holding pattern until they can start handing out Section 8679 waivers to MHI and HHI when the President decides it's important enough to do so.

This isn't really an issue with their quality of worksmanship or anything. Rather it's an issue with their existing capacities and ability to expand, which is something the Japanese and Koreans don't really need to do, because they have plenty of capacity to begin with.

American shipyards are nearly maxed out. It'll take decades to bring them up to snuff if we tried to do it all at once so we're focusing on the gators, CVNs and SSNs for the time being. That means escorts are gonna hurt if we can't find a way to build smaller escorts in smaller yards. Connies kind of tried to do this but FMM is incompetent so it'll be NSCs on open tender for whatever shipyard says they can deliver.

Naval arms races are ultimately industrial races and America has a lot of atrophied industry while China is the world's factory.

Think LCS but without the stupid unfunded mission modules or the high speed for inter-theater relocation.

What our shipyards need are less bureaucrats and more doers. Every layer of bureaucracy is a cost.

Empty platitudes and MBAisms don't cut through bureaucracy. War does. Hopefully it comes sooner rather than later since every day the USN gets weaker relative to the PLAN.

I wish more people practiced Laconic Philosophy, it would save us circular conversations that seem to expand on no concrete point.

The point is there are serious material and escort shortfalls facing the USN in a INDOPACCOM fight and some unfortunate and regrettable assumptions regarding the technical, industrial and economic characteristics of an optimal INDOPACCOM escort ended up making an ass out of FMM and NAVSEA about half a decade ago.

FF(X) might be a bit of an over correction if it results in empty useless hulls like LCS did but that idea seems to be isolated entirely to FMM.
 
Last edited:
I guess simplifying is your problem. I want facts not hot winds in my sail.
 
The Adaptable Deck Launcher is offered in a strike length version that can handle any missile in a Mk 41-compatible canister.
Admittedly, TIL, as I thought their intention was to use ESSM in surface to surface mode, not stretch it another meter.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.).
 
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
 
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?
 
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).
 
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 !
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
You are correct, but they also replaced the FFG-7s in role as Friedman points out.

Where does he point this out, exactly? I scanned through the relevant bits of US Destroyers, and he only mentions that both the FFG-7s and DD-963s were slated to retire around the same time.

SC-21 actually pitched a mix of ships, but the budget at the time prevented both from happening, along with some very unrealistic costing on DD-21. Around 2000, I wrote a draft paper proposing an FF-21 to complement DD-21, but with the crazy low price being claimed for the destroyer, it was hard to propose a frigate with a straight face. And working for the PEO at the time, challenging the budget projections for the DD-21 was not career enhancing for a young analyst.

In hindsight, the frigates would have been a better deal in many ways. One yard building DDGs (new or old design) at a low rate and another one or two building new FFGs would have been so much more flexible.
 
Where does he point this out, exactly? I scanned through the relevant bits of US Destroyers, and he only mentions that both the FFG-7s and DD-963s were slated to retire around the same time.
Page 448 specifically in relation to the conception of DD-21: "Plans called for building 32 ships to replace retiring Perry and Spruance-class ships."
Around 2000, I wrote a draft paper proposing an FF-21 to complement DD-21, but with the crazy low price being claimed for the destroyer, it was hard to propose a frigate with a straight face.
I am extremely interested in this. Do you still have it? Do you have anything more regarding similar projects?
The relevant costings to which you refer are also coincidentally on page 448 iirc
And working for the PEO at the time, challenging the budget projections for the DD-21 was not career enhancing for a young analyst.
Certainly wasn't aided by the contemporary DoN opinion that older vessels should be moved into escort duties while newer vessels took frontline roles.
In hindsight, the frigates would have been a better deal in many ways.
Now getting very off topic but I tend to agree. Particularly a VGAS or 5in ERGM equipped frigate, not dissimilar to the '98 Springstyle Frigate, would seemingly fulfill the USMC's NGFS requirements at lower cost and with greater versatility for the Navy at large than DDG-1000.
Oh well, hindsight is 20/20 after all
 
At the rate things are going, it may well be time to go back to the future:
sea-vulcan-25-02-jpg.807916

(h/t Rattlesnek)
 
Page 448 specifically in relation to the conception of DD-21: "Plans called for building 32 ships to replace retiring Perry and Spruance-class ships."

I am extremely interested in this. Do you still have it? Do you have anything more regarding similar projects?
The relevant costings to which you refer are also coincidentally on page 448 iirc

Ah, I see. Yeah, I think this is honestly not really accurate.

What really happened was that DD-21 was planned to directly replace the DD-963s, and the Navy simply abandoned the ocean escort/deep-water ASW role almost completely.

I don't have a copy of that paper and it would have been work product for my employer at the time anyway. (And they no longer exist.)

Certainly wasn't aided by the contemporary DoN opinion that older vessels should be moved into escort duties while newer vessels took frontline roles.

Right, so rather than having DD-21s replacing FFG-7s, the plan was for DD-963s to replace the FFGs. But of course the budget and especially manpower constraints around 2000 meant that retaining the older hulls for the low mix was not feasible.

Of course, what all this means in the 2020s is complicated. FFG(X) was not exactly an FFG-7 analog and was definitely positioned more as a mid-mix ship than a low-mix one like the old FFGs. You could definitely have made a case for a somewhat lower mix FFG, but FF(X) isn't it.
 
Greedo was responding to me.
I said FF(X) would have more capability than OHPs did when decommissioned
No, your exact words were "Sure, but in reality even without putting anything fancy on the aft platform it’s a replacement for the OHPs." Nothing about their state when they were decomm'd. The Peace Dividend just gave the Navy the justification for stripping out the Mk13 launcher instead of upgrading them with VLS like the Aussies did. Not that these ships had much tread left by the early oughts though.

But in their prime? The OHPs were a good ship, with good sensors and armaments appropriate to their role. The FF(X) is no such beast.
 
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?
You're right, for some reason I thought the MK13 carried ASROC as well as the Standard and Harpoon. Thanks for the correction. I was also responding to JPJ about the role of the FF(X) in relation to the OHP.
 
No, your exact words were "Sure, but in reality even without putting anything fancy on the aft platform it’s a replacement for the OHPs." Nothing about their state when they were decomm'd. The Peace Dividend just gave the Navy the justification for stripping out the Mk13 launcher instead of upgrading them with VLS like the Aussies did. Not that these ships had much tread left by the early oughts though.

But in their prime? The OHPs were a good ship, with good sensors and armaments appropriate to their role. The FF(X) is no such beast.
I don’t think the ‘peace dividend’ had much to do with it. I think the number of burkes planned had more to do with, than a ‘peace dividend’ because you don’t build a navy based on what is needed during peace time.

You keep saying what FF(X) is or isn’t when there hasn’t even been an actual initial design released beyond ‘based off of NSC’
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom