US FF(X) Program - DISCUSSION

[MadRat]

The amount of civilization within 200 km of the shore is quite astonishing. Not every target will threaten to hit back. Not many perhaps, because effective shore-launched AShMs is still largely to be proven. Until then the gun has plenty of room to operate.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The amount of civilization within 200 km of the shore is quite astonishing. Not every target will threaten to hit back. Not many perhaps, because effective shore-launched AShMs is still largely to be proven. Until then the gun has plenty of room to operate.

I mean we have at least 4 examples of successful ASM strikes launched from shore.

‘67- sinking of the eilat
‘80s- Iran launches during the tanker war
‘06- hezbollah strike against Israeli corvette(sa’ar 3 iirc)
‘22- ukrain sinking Moskva

 

[DJK]

I mean we have at least 4 examples of successful ASM strikes launched from shore.

‘67- sinking of the eilat
‘80s- Iran launches during the tanker war
‘06- hezbollah strike against Israeli corvette(sa’ar 3 iirc)
‘22- ukrain sinking Moskva

And one in Falklands. But once drones were able to provide targeting instead of an MPA, you needed to be very aware of your enemy's capabilities and 32 Zumwalts would have been cancelled as soon as that was obvious.

In the event we never had to wait for that. So of course DDG1000 isnt going to be getting too littoral anymore. If you stripped out half the VLS, replace the guns, add useful closein defences, and delete anything unnecessary, you probably still costing more than a serial production Constellation. At least would be more useful than a Legend, the CIC might even be just what you need for modern drone fleets.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Only if you don't want to engage any deeper ashore than the surf line. Development time was not kind to the assumptions behind Zumwalt, or the entire From the Sea doctrine.

Oh, absolutely.

I'm still surprised how quickly AShMs got longer ranged compared to how long it took to field Zumwalts.

 

[DWG]

I mean I see 4 missiles that could be destroyed by AGS outside of their range.

That presumes you know where they are, which for a vehicle capable of hiding inside any warehouse or similar is problematical (and then there's the known, but heavily fortified, Russian launch sites such as Oбъект 100 which were designed to survive nuclear strikes). And during a landing operation you can't wait out of range for the launchers to reveal themselves, you have to move close enough inshore to interdict targets tens of miles beyond the shoreline.

Land Attack in the Zumwalt's mission is not an end to itself, but an enabler for amphibious operations, and the ships of the ARG have no option but to move (relatively) close inshore, even with LCACs as connectors.

 

[DWG]

Just like with SAM batteries the real method of neutralizing them is to destroy the radars that would be detecting targets and possibly guiding them.

A radar that can see that far off shore isn’t packing up and moving in anything like a short time period.

A 500km range is useless if the launcher vehicle doesn’t have eyes to tell the missiles where to go.

Did you entirely miss the Russian focus on ESM for AShM targeting? The land-based variant of Mineral ME-2 is road-mobile, and can supposedly monitor 50 targets at 450km in passive mode.

On top of which there's airborne MPAs and ELINT platforms, OTH radar that can be well outside the combat zone (I'd be surprised if 2B96 Container, range 3000km plus, doesn't have a maritime search mode, and Podsolnukh, 450km range, definitely does), space based ocean surveillance radar (Kondor, plus likely the Chinese Huanjing), plus the known Russian capability for missiles such as SSN-12/Granit/Vulkan conducting their own targeting with one missile in scout mode doing active search and the entire salvo organising its own targeting, which obviously has potential for inclusion in later missiles.

 

[DWG]

I'm still surprised how quickly AShMs got longer ranged compared to how long it took to field Zumwalts.

'how long it took to field Zumwalts' is probably the most significant part of that sentence.

 

[cccgong]

It was always a flawed premise as you can make a 50% longer ranged missile in wartime in a few months by extending the fuel tanks and/or reducing warhead size where as you need a decade ish for a ship design, build, and comissioning.

I was always in the MMSC/bigger independence camp from the announcement of the FFG(X) program. After that I said it should have been HII’s offer (even though it was never public it was always going to be a legend variant)

As a supporter of the LCSes for many years now the MMSC or the independence variant made the most sense. Hot production lines, cheapest options available most likely.

No the MMSC is too anemic for FFG(X). I only bring it up as it's less shit than FFX, and it's ready to be build today for lower cost.

 

[johnpjones1775]

That presumes you know where they are, which for a vehicle capable of hiding inside any warehouse or similar is problematical (and then there's the known, but heavily fortified, Russian launch sites such as Oбъект 100 which were designed to survive nuclear strikes). And during a landing operation you can't wait out of range for the launchers to reveal themselves, you have to move close enough inshore to interdict targets tens of miles beyond the shoreline.

Land Attack in the Zumwalt's mission is not an end to itself, but an enabler for amphibious operations, and the ships of the ARG have no option but to move (relatively) close inshore, even with LCACs as connectors.

As I said, you don’t target the launchers, you target the radar. It will be emitting to see you which means you’ll be able to see it and hit.

Trying to hit individual launchers weather ASM or SAM, is a game of whack-a-mole, and there’s a lot more launchers than there are sensors.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It was always a flawed premise as you can make a 50% longer ranged missile in wartime in a few months by extending the fuel tanks and/or reducing warhead size where as you need a decade ish for a ship design, build, and comissioning.


No the MMSC is too anemic for FFG(X). I only bring it up as it's less shit than FFX, and it's ready to be build today for lower cost.

FFG(X) doesn’t need to be a light destroyer in a fleet with 90 heavy destroyers.

In 2019 the cost for the entire MMSC program was $1.9b for a total of $490m per hull.
Thats the price range we need to be in for our frigate program. Some thing we can afford to build 50+ total and several per year.

https://news.usni.org/2019/12/20/lo...construction-contract-for-four-saudi-frigates
You also don’t need to design a ship to counter longer ranged missiles. You just need to increase the gun range.
Sub caliber rounds is an option for example.

 

[Scott Kenny]

FFG(X) doesn’t need to be a light destroyer in a fleet with 90 heavy destroyers.

In 2019 the cost for the entire MMSC program was $1.9b for a total of $490m per hull.
Thats the price range we need to be in for our frigate program. Some thing we can afford to build 50+ total and several per year.

IMO we need to be pushing XLUSVs to the point they are large enough to haul a decent towed array or two, and use those for our FF needs.**

Something big enough yet cheap enough for each combat ship in the USN to have 3 hanging around it, with control capabilities for many more.

Edit: ** Still need FFGs to act as control nodes for the XL-USVs, though.

 

[johnpjones1775]

IMO we need to be pushing XLUSVs to the point they are large enough to haul a decent towed array or two, and use those for our FF needs.

Something big enough yet cheap enough for each combat ship in the USN to have 3 hanging around it, with control capabilities for many more.

I don’t disagree on utilizing USVs, but we still need manned small surface combatants and in fairly large numbers whether they’re LCSes, FFs with or without the G designation, we need ships that can do the peacetime jobs that burkes are way too much for.

We need ships in wartime to escort MSC and civilian ships, as well as covering secondary and tertiary theaters, or support the burkes in the primary theater.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don’t disagree on utilizing USVs, but we still need manned small surface combatants and in fairly large numbers whether they’re LCSes, FFs with or without the G designation, we need ships that can do the peacetime jobs that burkes are way too much for.

We need ships in wartime to escort MSC and civilian ships, as well as covering secondary and tertiary theaters, or support the burkes in the primary theater.

Fair point. I need to clarify that post. We still need FFGs, if only as controllers for those XL-USVs.

In the Cold War the USN had ~120 FF+FFGs and when the US got rid of all the frigates we really lost out on the raw hull numbers to be doing all the peacetime jobs.

 

[DJK]

FFG(X) doesn’t need to be a light destroyer in a fleet with 90 heavy destroyers.

In 2019 the cost for the entire MMSC program was $1.9b for a total of $490m per hull.
Thats the price range we need to be in for our frigate program. Some thing we can afford to build 50+ total and several per year.

Ship design is a tradeoff between what you need/want and what you can get. Also, you focus so much on labelling something a destroyer that you miss (again) their comparative capabilities. Burke is rubbish at ASW against modern subs, has no mission bay, requires large crews, and is optimised and trained for AAW. FFG complements that and can defend

Sub caliber rounds is an option for example.

Those are pretty much antimissile rounds, and I doubt they outrange the next generation of ASMs, even if you go hunting their radar systems. A UAV or satellite will spot you first.

IMO we need to be pushing XLUSVs to the point they are large enough to haul a decent towed array or two, and use those for our FF needs.**

It does sound like that might be the default FF(X) plan, until someone discovers its not much good at that either. I thought the MUSV (that was) had towed arrays already. Would be interesting to see another MUSV that can do a low cost air/surface picket with small radar and maybe a 40mm gun. Basically a self contained CIWS on its own hull, to escort the FF...

Something big enough yet cheap enough for each combat ship in the USN to have 3 hanging around it, with control capabilities for many more.

Edit: ** Still need FFGs to act as control nodes for the XL-USVs, though.

Yeah LUSV as the missile barge, especially if FFGs are in short supply.

 

[DWG]

Zumwalt as it was designed, would've been an absolute game changer v Iran. 1 horizon stand off is sufficient to guarantee effectively normal engagement v low flying ASCMs (with very significant seeker problems due to low rcs hull).

You don't need stealth in a 25 mile wide waterway, it's positively contra-indicated when anyone on a tall-ish building can see you and control drones and missiles all the way into your exquisitely expensive superstructure. (One hit and bye-bye low RCS).

At the same time, it also would've provided an effectively unlimited pool of ammo for MALEs(and, more persistently, small drones) to work with in coastal areas.

Unlimited? When every car or window may hide someone with a Shahed or similar? The unlimited ammo problem is pointing the exact opposite way you seem to think.

Some of those ranges are substantially wrong,

Is that like being a little bit pregnant? Because as long as the other guy has one system that can reach you ....

but more importantly, most of these are mounted exclusively or primarily on mobile platforms, and this is the case since the 1950s(i.e., for over 70 years at this point). This makes any range comparisons between stand-off and stand-in systems fundamentally irrelevant, unless the plan is to silence MG nests with MRBMs.

They're mobile, so they're irrelevant? Seriously? There's only two questions here: how close inshore did a Zumwalt need to be for its AGS CONOPS (25 miles, we know this), and secondly, could the other guy reach out and touch it at that range? That was already starting to be the case when the first AGS was delivered, it was definitely the case when Zumwalt finally commissioned, and its far worse nowadays, when even Vietnam and North Korea are building coast defence systems that outrange AGS.

Of course the situation was even worse for LCS because Netfires PAM was canned before it ever saw service (and only had 25 miles range anyway)..

 

[Ainen]

You don't need stealth in a 25 mile wide waterway, it's positively contra-indicated when anyone on a tall-ish building can see you and control drones and missiles all the way into your exquisitely expensive superstructure. (One hit and bye-bye low RCS).

Ship stealth, almost always(maybe extreme cases are different), isn't about being invisible, it's about being troublesome to radars and seekers(including behind countermeasures and/or between other signatures).
As everyone could see, Iranian radar seekers aren't exactly world beaters.

Unlimited? When every car or window may hide someone with a Shahed or similar? The unlimited ammo problem is pointing the exact opposite way you seem to think.

750 rounds(engagements), easily replenishable at sea. We're comparing to single digit ammo count(on MALEs, nothing on smaller drones), going directly against loiter time and altitude.
While it is probably ineffective for Israeli approaches to urban warfare(155 guided rounds aren't really good for that in the first place), this will satisfy just about any sensible ability of the current drone fleet to identify targets.

Is that like being a little bit pregnant? Because as long as the other guy has one system that can reach you ....

The other guy in the quote flies, sails nuke submarines, and so on.
The range off the coast is absolutely irrelevant; for SSGN, you're equally vulnerable 25 miles off and 250 miles off coast.
Threat instead is defined by redfor missile pool(at sea and overall, as these are high-end missiles with highly limited available stock), making threat levels effectively "flat".

You have to be able to defend (or assume you can not, and sometimes luck is just not on your side) against this threat regardless of proximity to the coast.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Ship design is a tradeoff between what you need/want and what you can get. Also, you focus so much on labelling something a destroyer that you miss (again) their comparative capabilities. Burke is rubbish at ASW against modern subs, has no mission bay, requires large crews, and is optimised and trained for AAW. FFG complements that and can defend

Those are pretty much antimissile rounds, and I doubt they outrange the next generation of ASMs, even if you go hunting their radar systems. A UAV or satellite will spot you first.

It does sound like that might be the default FF(X) plan, until someone discovers its not much good at that either. I thought the MUSV (that was) had towed arrays already. Would be interesting to see another MUSV that can do a low cost air/surface picket with small radar and maybe a 40mm gun. Basically a self contained CIWS on its own hull, to escort the FF...

Yeah LUSV as the missile barge, especially if FFGs are in short supply.

We have missiles for taking out satellites and UAVs.

Doesn’t matter if Burke wasn’t designed for ASW, constellation class didn’t need to be a 7k ton ship with top tier radar in order to be the fleet’a ASW platform.

 

[PFJN]

Hi,
I was under the impression that most of the size requirement was driven by the US Navy deciding that any modern surface combatant would have to meet a certain set of minimum defensive an survivability requirements that drove the overall ship size up, including a certain minimum radar fit to detect and track the latest expected threats and having a certain degree of separation of some of the critical stuff onboard. I would guess if the Navy goes back a decides instead that a new class of surface combatant won't be expected to operate independently in high-threat areas then maybe they might be able to meet a reduced radar requirement and/or defense and survivability requirement and a smaller ship like a militarized WMSM/NSC based platform could be acceptable.

 

[MadRat]

I kind of like the Vixby and how they set it up. The downside is it basically has worse crew accommodations than an LCS will supplies for only 14 day missions. Really limits the utility of the concept.

 

[GruntFox]

Hi,
I was under the impression that most of the size requirement was driven by the US Navy deciding that any modern surface combatant would have to meet a certain set of minimum defensive an survivability requirements that drove the overall ship size up, including a certain minimum radar fit to detect and track the latest expected threats and having a certain degree of separation of some of the critical stuff onboard. I would guess if the Navy goes back a decides instead that a new class of surface combatant won't be expected to operate independently in high-threat areas then maybe they might be able to meet a reduced radar requirement and/or defense and survivability requirement and a smaller ship like a militarized WMSM/NSC based platform could be acceptable.

To be honest, a lot of it has to do with the 'floor' for an FF/FFG rising so high within a scant few decades. The FFG became a mini-Burke because that's the new 'floor'. Like how destroyers went from a few hundred tons to just short of 6k tons in a handful of decades.

The FF program is likely to hit the same situation: a Congress unable (or unwilling) to understand that the situation has changed and the military is unable to do anything about it because its right to tell Congress they're being complete idiots has been stripped from them.

I wouldn't be surprised if we're going to have a BeuOrd situation...

 

[cccgong]

Currently FFX is likely the results of a corrupt administration looking for kick backs.

Not to say that congress is not also problematic

 

[Jimmo952]

Currently FFX is likely the results of a corrupt administration looking for kick backs.

Not to say that congress is not also problematic

More likely the result of a shipbuilding process NAVSEA/Industry that can't build ships anymore.

FFX is about building what you can, not what you want.

 

[cccgong]

A competent security of the navy wouldn’t have ordered these. As we’ve been over many times, they won’t arrive until FFGX does and they serve little purpose

 

[Jimmo952]

A competent security of the navy wouldn’t have ordered these. As we’ve been over many times, they won’t arrive until FFGX does and they serve little purpose

No money is being allocated for FFGX in the proposed budget.

Think about what that means.

 

[cccgong]

No money is being allocated for FFGX in the proposed budget.

Think about what that means.

There’s still 2 being built with the first one coming out right around 2028. When the FFX comes out and an administration change occurs. They will also likely only be 20% ish different in price. Think about what that means

 

[Jimmo952]

There’s still 2 being built with the first one coming out right around 2028. When the FFX comes out and an administration change. They will also likely only be 20% ish different in price. Think about what that means

It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

If no money is being allocated to complete the ships, the writing is on the wall.

I know you want your view to be true, but it is by no means assured that it is.

The ultimate costs and exact timeline to get these ships deployable are still unknown, if it even happens.

 

[MadRat]

I can see unmanned platforms making a litorral presence obsolete. While they will cover a large swath of ocean, each vessel required an uptick in overall fuel and maintenance. So I am failing to see it work logistically on the open ocean. But in a confimed area of operations of course it will have incredible value. So the role of a high endurance FF(X) or high firepower FFG(X) will bring something to the table. In the open ocean with respect to escort, the FFG(X) is the better platform. In operations like the Hormuz Strait, the FFG(X) is the better platform. In littoral operations the FF(X) and unmanned vessel combination will likely be better due simply to risk to lose ships are less costly in this form. Almost all of the firepower will rely on the unmanned vessels and imho the FF(X) needs to be difficult to locate.

 

[Jimmo952]

With the proliferation and increasing capabilities of access-denial weapons, UAVs and USVs will probably be the only way to do littoral operations against a sophisticated opponent.

It's just too dangerous to send manned vessels close to an adversary's shore.

As we see in the Ukrainian-Russo war, modern war is increasingly a war of robots.

 

[DWG]

Ship stealth, almost always(maybe extreme cases are different), isn't about being invisible, it's about being troublesome to radars and seekers(including behind countermeasures and/or between other signatures).
As everyone could see, Iranian radar seekers aren't exactly world beaters.

I talked about visual detection for a reason. If I can see you, I can guide an FPV drone into you, no matter how good your RF or IRF stealth is. There are places in the world where stealth is now worthless, and those are precisely the places Zumwalt was designed to fight.

750 rounds(engagements), easily replenishable at sea. We're comparing to single digit ammo count(on MALEs, nothing on smaller drones), going directly against loiter time and altitude.

First find your target. No matter how good a Zumwalts sensors were supposed to be, they weren't up to following a fibre-optic cable back to a particular room, cellar, bunker or trench.

The range off the coast is absolutely irrelevant; for SSGN, you're equally vulnerable 25 miles off and 250 miles off coast.
Threat instead is defined by redfor missile pool(at sea and overall, as these are high-end missiles with highly limited available stock), making threat levels effectively "flat".

25 mile wide choke points change the equation. You're now in range of everything down to ATGMs with delusions of grandeur, guided shells, and even consumer drones.

You have to be able to defend (or assume you can not, and sometimes luck is just not on your side) against this threat regardless of proximity to the coast.

Yes, but you don't walk your exquisitely expensive warship into the other guy's killzone if you can avoid it.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I kind of like the Vixby and how they set it up. The downside is it basically has worse crew accommodations than an LCS will supplies for only 14 day missions. Really limits the utility of the concept.

Well I mean it was designed to be a glorified missile boat, so that makes sense.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Currently FFX is likely the results of a corrupt administration looking for kick backs.

Not to say that congress is not also problematic

FMM was buying parts from Europe, and Europe sourced their parts from China that was a big reason for the switch.

It was originally told to me that FMM was buying parts from China, but I got that clarified a week or two ago.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I talked about visual detection for a reason. If I can see you, I can guide an FPV drone into you, no matter how good your RF or IRF stealth is. There are places in the world where stealth is now worthless, and those are precisely the places Zumwalt was designed to fight.


First find your target. No matter how good a Zumwalts sensors were supposed to be, they weren't up to following a fibre-optic cable back to a particular room, cellar, bunker or trench.


25 mile wide choke points change the equation. You're now in range of everything down to ATGMs with delusions of grandeur, guided shells, and even consumer drones.


Yes, but you don't walk your exquisitely expensive warship into the other guy's killzone if you can avoid it.

Are you implying that fiber optic FPV drones are some how a threat to a zumwalt sitting 50 miles off shore?

 

[johnpjones1775]

It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

If no money is being allocated to complete the ships, the writing is on the wall.

I know you want your view to be true, but it is by no means assured that it is.

The ultimate costs and exact timeline to get these ships deployable are still unknown, if it even happens.

Yeah, it’s not even known what the navy will do with them. Operating a bespoke class of ships with only 2 in the class and no unique/major capability increases over other ships in the fleet means the USN doesn’t really want them, but at the same time it will likely be hard to sell them as any one who might be interested in them would likely have to conduct expensive refits to rearm them in accordance with their navy, and other navies that might really benefit from a big capabilities boost of having them probably won’t be able to afford to buy them.

 

[Desertfox]

If they sell them off for cheap... Mexico could certainly use them.

 

[Ainen]

I talked about visual detection for a reason. If I can see you, I can guide an FPV drone into you, no matter how good your RF or IRF stealth is. There are places in the world where stealth is now worthless, and those are precisely the places Zumwalt was designed to fight.

Small FPV doesn't fly 25 nmi....it takes a munition of normal size - perfectly fine target for original DBR and 2x mk.110.

Furthermore, Iran isn't exactly great at small drones; we can understand this much from how Hezbollah is now doing. Newbie power without actual combat exposure. And btw I'm quite sure you could park vanilla Zumwalt off south-western Ukraine and, should ASCM salvos miss, it wouldn't had been able to do anything about them.
Failure of weak and completely unprepared BSF shouldn't be over-interpreted.

First find your target. No matter how good a Zumwalts sensors were supposed to be, they weren't up to following a fibre-optic cable back to a particular room, cellar, bunker or trench.

You can, as a first stage, provide fires for MALEs (which are severely limited by ammo depth). Second stage, launch more smaller drones via the normal aircraft facilities of Zumwalt or LCS.

25 mile wide choke points change the equation. You're now in range of everything down to ATGMs with delusions of grandeur, guided shells, and even consumer drones.

It is narrow, but it isn't that narrow. Normal naval LO target(light subsonic ASCM) engagement horizon is below half that number, and to fly a couple of dozen miles with an ASCM warhead, ATGM itself turns into a small ASCM. I.e. a normie threat.
Granted, small boats are more asymmetrical, but this problem goes back to the dawn of the steam age... It's a known problem if you solve it.

 

[johnpjones1775]

If they sell them off for cheap... Mexico could certainly use them.

Definitely, do they operate mk110 or (SEA)RAM already? Or any mk41?

 

[Jimmo952]

If they sell them off for cheap... Mexico could certainly use them.

They would be a pretty big step up in sophistication for the Mexican Navy.

I doubt the US would even want to sell them to the Mexicans.

 

[Desertfox]

Definitely, do they operate mk110 or (SEA)RAM already? Or any mk41?

Yeah the Benito Juarez frigates have Mk110, SeaRAM, ESSM, and Harpoon.

 

[Desertfox]

They would be a pretty big step up in sophistication for the Mexican Navy.

I doubt the US would even want to sell them to the Mexicans.

US sold the weapon package for the Benito Juarez frigates, almost sold OHPs at one time, and Mexico has been in talks about acquiring some of the sulprus Independence class LCS.

 

[Jimmo952]

US sold the weapon package for the Benito Juarez frigates, almost sold OHPs at one time, and Mexico has been in talks about acquiring some of the sulprus Independence class LCS.

I understand, but the Constellations would bring Aegis and a much more powerful radar.

The US might need to take military against the Mexican narco-state in the future.

I doubt the US will sell them anything too capable.