US FF(X) Program - DISCUSSION

joshjosh said:
Is this the FF(X) thread? Not sure. Here's something new on FF(X):

The FF(X) schedule according to the FY27 PB: FF(X)-1 ($1.67B) delivers in 2030. FF(X)-2 ($1.94B) delivers in 2033. FF(X)-3 and -4 ($1.83B) deliver in 2036, the additional build time reflecting new shipyards potentially joining the construction effort.
Click to expand...

Where are these numbers from?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
How would another 5” gun be useless in the age of drones when guns have been swatting drones from the sky at sea for the last 3 or 4 years?
Click to expand...
Because its a bit big and slow? It might be less useless than mk-110, depending on future 57mm projectiles.
 
Titus K said:
A containerized and automated version of Captas-4 to be mounted on a USV, could this be the solution for FF(X) ?
https://www.navalnews.com/event-new...ems-destined-for-cancelled-u-s-navy-frigates/
Click to expand...
Not for FFX as it sits now.

It'd be very useful for an ASW 2XL-USV that would replace FFX for ASW screen. By my count, the USN would need hundreds of these, 3 for every single combatant hull. And control channels for 6 to 18 on every ship, because the Convoys need a large number of ASW USVs.


cccgong said:
Also I’m skeptical the NSC would work as a usv mother ship due to the size of future usv that will work in the ASW role (200 tons or more)
Click to expand...
You'd take the RHIB or Helo over to the ASW USV, not recover the ASW USV on the FFX.



cccgong said:
In the mid term I don't see much reason for anything up to and including FFGX sized to not be fully automated.
Click to expand...
I could see an argument for the FFGs to still be manned because there's no intention for DDGs to escort convoys.



SlothmanAllen said:
FF(X) on the chopping block going forward?
Click to expand...
Doubt it, the USN really needs the hulls. Any hulls. No matter how useless they are in combat.



cccgong said:
The ship would have been a much better combatant than FFX. This isn't the 1920s anymore rough sea state stability is nice to have but not critical due to ships not being gun platforms anymore.
Click to expand...
No, you need stability for your radars to be able to track things.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not for FFX as it sits now.

It'd be very useful for an ASW 2XL-USV that would replace FFX for ASW screen. By my count, the USN would need hundreds of these, 3 for every single combatant hull. And control channels for 6 to 18 on every ship, because the Convoys need a large number of ASW USVs.



You'd take the RHIB or Helo over to the ASW USV, not recover the ASW USV on the FFX.




I could see an argument for the FFGs to still be manned because there's no intention for DDGs to escort convoys.




Doubt it, the USN really needs the hulls. Any hulls. No matter how useless they are in combat.




No, you need stability for your radars to be able to track things.
Click to expand...
Agreed that if you want to recover ASW USV of the size that are needed you’d need to forgo the helo deck too. But that’s a nonstarter and would take forever to figure out a design for as we’ve only just started to work with USV.

There’s no reason your FFG need to be manned to escort convoys especially as historically you would have around 10 FFG to escort a single convoy. It could easily be 1 DDG controlling 9 FFG.

You don’t need useless ships that cost 70% of a flight 3 AB and taking up yard capacity you need to make useful ships.


You don’t need that much stability. Beamforming is very advanced.
 
Last edited:
cccgong said:
Agreed that if you want to recover ASW USV of the size that are needed you’d need to forgo the helo deck too. But that’s a nonstarter and would take forever to figure out a design for as we’ve only just started to work with USV.
Click to expand...
The size ship you're talking about for an ASW USV is more like 200ft long. That means recovering then in a well deck, via an LSD or heavy-lift ship.

Which happily does mean a ship large enough to still have a helo deck, but it's the size of an LSD, not an FFG.



cccgong said:
There’s no reason your FFG need to be manned to escort convoys especially as historically you would have around 10 FFG to escort a single convoy. It could easily be 1 DDG controlling 9 FFG.
Click to expand...
Could, the Cold War planning was a Spruance and FF/FFGs as convoy escorts.

My thinking was that the modern plan would be FFGs as manned craft while the ASW USVs would be the FF-equivalents. Because as we have all been bashing around, there are a lot of jobs that don't need a DDG but do need a manned ship.


cccgong said:
You don’t need useless ships that cost 70% of a flight 3 AB and taking up yard capacity you need to make useful ships.
Click to expand...
That was actually one of the advantages of the Constellation-class. Finncanteri was not one of the usual producers, they're a new-to-defense shipyard. Growing the defense industrial base.


cccgong said:
You don’t need that much stability. Beamforming is very advanced.
Click to expand...
And yet the Constellation class was planned at 7000tons, with normal growth from the FFG-7 expected to be 6000-6500tons.
 
TomS said:
And here we go again.

https://news.usni.org/2026/04/24/u-...ew-navy-frigate-destroyer-work-in-1-85b-study
Click to expand...
Two years from now: "The Navy has settled on a Korean design for it's next frigate class, but there remain concerns that aspects of the design don't conform to USN design standards. Naval Sea Systems Command believes that these concerns can be addressed with minimal changes."

Four years from now: "The Department of the Navy remains adamant that the current work stoppage on the lead ship of the new John Connally class of frigates does not rise to the level of a 'total design review,' and they are confident that work will resume within the next 67-94 weeks."

6 years from now: "The United States Navy's controversial pivot away from blue water operations to a more 'Homeland-focused, close in observation' concept of operations has hit a snag as the Navy is having trouble sourcing adequate numbers of binoculars for sailors to monitor the sea from the shore..."
 
MrTopaz said:
Two years from now: "The Navy has settled on a Korean design for it's next frigate class, but there remain concerns that aspects of the design don't conform to USN design standards. Naval Sea Systems Command believes that these concerns can be addressed with minimal changes."

Four years from now: "The Department of the Navy remains adamant that the current work stoppage on the lead ship of the new John Connally class of frigates does not rise to the level of a 'total design review,' and they are confident that work will resume within the next 67-94 weeks."

6 years from now: "The United States Navy's controversial pivot away from blue water operations to a more 'Homeland-focused, close in observation' concept of operations has hit a snag as the Navy is having trouble sourcing adequate numbers of binoculars for sailors to monitor the sea from the shore..."
Click to expand...

You forgot the $16B study to determine if foreign binoculars can be modified to suit the Navy's needs.
 
CastleBravo said:
Anyone with SSNs is going to track the convoy by satellite, so all the sub needs to do is get in range of missiles and shoot at coordinates from other platforms. ASW escorts at best keep the subs from closing to torpedo range. The real torpedo threat will come from UUVs.
Click to expand...
If there's no reason to bunch up because any individual merchant target can effectively outrun a sub, there's no reason to convoy up to begin with.

Also, convoying means the merchant targets are more vulnerable to aircraft (and AShBMs/hypersonic).
 
MrTopaz said:
Two years from now: "The Navy has settled on a Korean design for it's next frigate class, but there remain concerns that aspects of the design don't conform to USN design standards. Naval Sea Systems Command believes that these concerns can be addressed with minimal changes."

Four years from now: "The Department of the Navy remains adamant that the current work stoppage on the lead ship of the new John Connally class of frigates does not rise to the level of a 'total design review,' and they are confident that work will resume within the next 67-94 weeks."

6 years from now: "The United States Navy's controversial pivot away from blue water operations to a more 'Homeland-focused, close in observation' concept of operations has hit a snag as the Navy is having trouble sourcing adequate numbers of binoculars for sailors to monitor the sea from the shore..."
Click to expand...
The year is 2045.
The third attempt at a Gerald R. Ford replacement has been cancelled due to cost overruns, the Navy has opted instead to order 22 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile helicopter destroyers.

The year is 2065.
The US Navy orders 18 more Arleigh Burke flight 5s as a stopgap after development is delayed on the new frigate.

The year is 2085.
The entire surface fleet…it's all Burkes…the only ship the US can still build.

The year is 2105.
The Secretary of the Navy performs the annual sacrifice of a multi-billion dollar project to appease the Burke gods, as is tradition.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If there's no reason to bunch up because any individual merchant target can effectively outrun a sub, there's no reason to convoy up to begin with.

Also, convoying means the merchant targets are more vulnerable to aircraft (and AShBMs/hypersonic).
Click to expand...
Convoying means they are less vunerable to missiles as they can be protected. You also forgot that Chinese subs have sub launch anti ship missiles. If you dispersed your merchants that just becomes a free for all turkey shoot for the Chinese.

MrTopaz said:
Two years from now: "The Navy has settled on a Korean design for it's next frigate class, but there remain concerns that aspects of the design don't conform to USN design standards. Naval Sea Systems Command believes that these concerns can be addressed with minimal changes."

Four years from now: "The Department of the Navy remains adamant that the current work stoppage on the lead ship of the new John Connally class of frigates does not rise to the level of a 'total design review,' and they are confident that work will resume within the next 67-94 weeks."

6 years from now: "The United States Navy's controversial pivot away from blue water operations to a more 'Homeland-focused, close in observation' concept of operations has hit a snag as the Navy is having trouble sourcing adequate numbers of binoculars for sailors to monitor the sea from the shore..."
Click to expand...

I’ve been saying this for a while, we should just settle on the Super Mogami as the anti Chinese alliance frigate. Japan and Australia will operate it. Taiwan looks likely and if the US were to join this would simplify logistics and upgrades
 
H_K said:
Large USVs won't need to be recovered. ~200ft length means 200-300t lightship displacement, 300-700t full load. Much of the load will be fuel for long range patrols. So no need for a well deck or LPD-17 mothership.
Click to expand...
That's a teeny-tiny thing, the RN is looking at 2500ts for Type 92.
 
TomS said:
And here we go again.

https://news.usni.org/2026/04/24/u-...ew-navy-frigate-destroyer-work-in-1-85b-study
Click to expand...
They can let the Koreans build Incheon class for them. FF(X) already is not much more than a glorified Incheon class that costs 8-fold of what Incheons costed ROKN. Or they could let them build 6 FFG-3s for the same price of a single FF(X) with BMD and fleet defence capable radar on top of proper ASW suite. If they want more endurance they'll have it with enlarged hulls for modest increase of price...


Obviously a joke and even if they let Korean or Japanese Shipyards build their own design for the USN, it would still be more expensive since USN will require them to fit it out with equipment specified by them, instead of the original equipment for ROKN or JMSDF. But I'm pretty certain you'll still get 2~3 FFG-3s or New FFMs fitted with USN specified equipment for the price of one FF(X) built in the US.
 
I'd suspect the most immediate orders from the USN to foreign shipbuilders will be a replacement for the Kaisers and possibly the Whidbey Islands. Those are the oldest ships in the fleet besides the LCCs, and most in need of immediate replacement, because they're both auxiliaries pressed into a few too many decades of service.

Combatants can be built in America for now.
 
Kat Tsun said:
I'd suspect the most immediate orders from the USN to foreign shipbuilders will be a replacement for the Kaisers and possibly the Whidbey Islands. Those are the oldest ships in the fleet besides the LCCs, and most in need of immediate replacement, because they're both auxiliaries pressed into a few too many decades of service.

Combatants can be built in America for now.
Click to expand...
Side note, I would hope that the LCCs and other random command ships get replaced by whatever comes out of the BBG program.
 
cccgong said:
Convoying means they are less vunerable to missiles as they can be protected. You also forgot that Chinese subs have sub launch anti ship missiles. If you dispersed your merchants that just becomes a free for all turkey shoot for the Chinese.
Click to expand...
But they only get one merchant target instead of multiples.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But they only get one merchant target instead of multiples.
Click to expand...
These ASM have ranges of 2-300 miles. And the Chinese have something like 40 ssk and are building them at a rapid rate. With transparent oceans due to satellite targeting, there’s more than enough missiles and subs to sink every single merchant ship they want.
 
Satellites will know where all merchant ships are, and can transmit this over elf to subs on a rotating basis. Or subs can come up every once in a while to get the newest ship location datasets.

Also the Chinese have torpedo tube launched hypersonics now thought at 1-200 mile range. So you will want ddg escort for convoys in addition to ffg
Sferrin said:
Wut?
Click to expand...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Side note, I would hope that the LCCs and other random command ships get replaced by whatever comes out of the BBG program.
Click to expand...

"Nothing" is a great guess for what will replace the LCCs.

They'll likely get replaced by a combination of a USSF commo cube swarm and select LPD-17s with more SATCOM terminals rather than a dedicated hull. The only reason they have an actual LCC hull (it's really just an LPH tho) is because OTH commo used to be specialized and needed big antennae.

Scott Kenny said:
But they only get one merchant target instead of multiples.
Click to expand...

Convoys aren't practical due to nuclear spacing demands.

The occupied sea area of something like HX 300 is barely enough for two modern CONEX ships at nuclear spacing with a single escort between them. I mean, you could make a convoy that spans 200 miles, and includes like two or three dozen ships, but it wouldn't be able to be protected due to the exponential increase in requirements for volume search. You go from needing like 4-6 warships to like 20-30. That's just running with the ships excluding the pierside guys.

Robots might reduce this but they're mainly going to be for URG and ARG escort. You'd need an entire JMSDF just to conduct escort operations for a couple convoys of merchants running back and forth between Hawaii and Taiwan.

If we had a spare "hundred or so" combatants and a few extra carriers around it'd be doable but we don't.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we should abandon its development. Ship design capabilities are something that can be lost in just a few years in a country without lifetime employment.

We should continue its development while simultaneously purchasing licenses for ships from other countries (without any modifications) and producing them.(I think it is better Korean DDG or Thaon di Revel-class patrol vessel)
I believe this would satisfy all requirements: cost reduction, maintenance of development capabilities, maintenance of production capabilities, and maintenance capabilities.

We don't need to limit make it clear. It's true that it will be a very expensive purchase, but we don't need to give up every time. Instead, we can buy cheaper alternatives to meet the required quantity.
America has abandoned projects midway many times before. I think we should try to see it through to completion at least once.
Last, we shouldn't force a conversion from metric design to imperial systems.
 
MihoshiK said:
The year is 2045.
The third attempt at a Gerald R. Ford replacement has been cancelled due to cost overruns, the Navy has opted instead to order 22 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile helicopter destroyers.

The year is 2065.
The US Navy orders 18 more Arleigh Burke flight 5s as a stopgap after development is delayed on the new frigate.

The year is 2085.
The entire surface fleet…it's all Burkes…the only ship the US can still build.

The year is 2105.
The Secretary of the Navy performs the annual sacrifice of a multi-billion dollar project to appease the Burke gods, as is tradition.
Click to expand...
No its not all Burkes in 2085. China donated several decommissioned frigates to ensure that USA remains a useful client after China eliminated its polluting hydrocarbon infrastructure to reduce smog in Beijing. The 20 year old donated ships were more more modern than the newest Burkes anyway.

USA and Russia were the last countries in the world to still rely on the legendary gas turbine power plants in their navies.
 
Jimmo952 said:
A little discussion about Flight 2 of FFX:

https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/ffx-flight-ii-in-the-works
Click to expand...
This is still hopium. DDG Flight 0 was a full combatant, subsequent flights refined the design, evolved systems, and expanded capability. FF(X) is a coast guard cutter painted gray, it's not going to animorph into an FTI by 2030. Reaching the capabilities of the european frigates Sally has demanded for decades now, like FREMM, will take a lot longer than 2030.
 
Moose said:
This is still hopium. DDG Flight 0 was a full combatant, subsequent flights refined the design, evolved systems, and expanded capability. FF(X) is a coast guard cutter painted gray, it's not going to animorph into an FTI by 2030. Reaching the capabilities of the european frigates Sally has demanded for decades now, like FREMM, will take a lot longer than 2030.
Click to expand...
The navy has never said they would have the capabilities this random blogger has demanded…
 
Moose said:
This is still hopium. DDG Flight 0 was a full combatant, subsequent flights refined the design, evolved systems, and expanded capability. FF(X) is a coast guard cutter painted gray, it's not going to animorph into an FTI by 2030. Reaching the capabilities of the european frigates Sally has demanded for decades now, like FREMM, will take a lot longer than 2030.
Click to expand...

We will have to wait and see. The timelines do seem...relaxed.

Hopefully the new Acting Sec stirs the pot and gets things moving quicker.

I doubt we will see FFX turning into a Kirov in Flight II but from the supplied documents, it seems the plan is for the Flight I production run to be short before the pivot to Flight II.

One scenario is possibly something like the F18 Hornet vs Super Hornet situation where the only thing in common was the name.

We will see. I remain hopeful.
 
Jimmo952 said:
I doubt we will see FFX turning into a Kirov in Flight II but from the supplied documents, it seems the plan is for the Flight I production run to be short before the pivot to Flight II.
Click to expand...
The whole premise of Flight I is pointless anyway since there’s no learning curve required to build another 2 NSC hulls and paint them gray. Pretending like that’s a step in the right direction or evidence of intelligent iterative design best practices is frankly preposterous.

Might as well take an extra 6-12 months to properly design Flight II with whatever limited changes can be made to increase military capability (without moving any bulkheads or any major structural items).
 
Maybe we should just presume Flight 1 is being built solely to keep the production line open and the workforce engaged, in the full knowledge they'll be useless for the Navy as anything other than training ships, and that nothing operationally useful will be turning up until Block 2. It probably meets the known facts at least as well as any supposition they're being built as actual combatants.
 
DWG said:
Maybe we should just presume Flight 1 is being built solely to keep the production line open and the workforce engaged, in the full knowledge they'll be useless for the Navy as anything other than training ships, and that nothing operationally useful will be turning up until Block 2. It probably meets the known facts at least as well as any supposition they're being built as actual combatants.
Click to expand...

Ideal? No, but not useless either.

Flight 1s would be useful helping enforce the current blockade off the Persian Gulf and they would have been useful enforcing the blockade off of Venezuela.

They won't be useless but will obviously be limited.

An additional benefit of building now with Flight 1 rather than waiting for Flight 2 is it gets the supply chain going.

It gives the various vendors providing needed components the demand signal needed to start building out a more robust supply chain.
 
DWG said:
Maybe we should just presume Flight 1 is being built solely to keep the production line open and the workforce engaged, in the full knowledge they'll be useless for the Navy as anything other than training ships, and that nothing operationally useful will be turning up until Block 2. It probably meets the known facts at least as well as any supposition they're being built as actual combatants.
Click to expand...
The production line was closed long ago. So there's not even that excuse.
 
cccgong said:
The production line was closed long ago. So there's not even that excuse.
Click to expand...

… it’s not, though? They were in the middle of actively turning out copies of this thing for the Coast Guard, with one mid-production and two more in the pipeline, when the program was suddenly annexed by the Navy.

That fact is why they’ll be able to turn out the lead ship in “record time”—because they essentially reset the stopwatch with the runner halfway through the marathon after handing them a different jersey at a water station.

The line is humming.
 
JS23 said:
… it’s not, though? They were in the middle of actively turning out copies of this thing for the Coast Guard, with one mid-production and two more in the pipeline, when the program was suddenly annexed by the Navy.

That fact is why they’ll be able to turn out the lead ship in “record time”—because they essentially reset the stopwatch with the runner halfway through the marathon after handing them a different jersey at a water station.

The line is humming.
Click to expand...
No that's not the case. The coast guard officially stopped construction on the last ship the Friedman in Nov 2024, but production was paused in April 2024. The ~15% finished hull was sitting out unprotected for over a year and scrapped in June 2025. There was one potential additional option for a hull (12th hull) but that was never excersized.

To put into perspective how bad they messed up the Freidman, prior hulls took ~1 year from first steel steel cut to commisioning. They started work on the Friedman in May 2021 and 4 years later it still wasn't done.

To sum it up there was never 2 more in the pipeline and the one that just started production had production stop 2 years ago and was scrapped last June. The yard is in no way ready to make more NSC's which is why the dates for the first FFX are so far out. Any claims by the administration otherwise are just lies to cover their corruption.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom