US FF(X) Program

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.
 
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...
That's amazing. So much worse than I could have expected. I expected low 1B and they are nearly at 2B.

Slower delivery than FFG(X), more expensive, and much less capable. Seems like Trump admin corruption just like BBG(X) costing 17 bil.
 
Last edited:
Navy Secretary Phelan leaving post immediately, Pentagon says

“Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan is departing the administration, effective immediately,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a social media post today. “On behalf of the Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War, we are grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy. We wish him well in his future endeavors. Undersecretary Hung Cao will become Acting Secretary of the Navy.”
Click to expand...

FF(X) on the chopping block going forward?
 
cccgong said:
That's amazing. So much worse than I could have expected. I expected low 1B and they are nearly at 2B.
Click to expand...

Imagine how much FFG(X) would cost if they restart it.

Well, you won't need to imagine. That'll perhaps happen sometime in the next four years. Then we'll get to see how long it'll take the USN to restart LCS-1 or something in 2036 and so on. USN forever denied new combatants simply because it can't stick to a program for more than 48 months? More likely than you'd think.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Imagine how much FFG(X) would cost if they restart it.

Well, you won't need to imagine. That'll perhaps happen sometime in the next four years. Then we'll get to see how long it'll take the USN to restart LCS-1 or something in 2036 and so on. USN forever denied new combatants simply because it can't stick to a program for more than 48 months? More likely than you'd think.
Click to expand...

No, they won't restart FFG(X). The next program will be based on Coast Guard Sentinel class. Expected cost is $3.5B for the first hull.
 
CastleBravo said:
No, they won't restart FFG(X). The next program will be based on Coast Guard Sentinel class. Expected cost is $3.5B for the first hull.
Click to expand...

They'll end up copying the Iranian Zolfaghar class PTMs with the NSM launchers for $5.8 billion a pop. Put them in a Caribbean Squadron.
 
The NSCes could be doing the majority of this blockade, and that’s why the FFX is needed.
2-3 burkes just to cover high end air defense, and several FFXs and LCSes would be much more ideal than 11 burkes, 3 amphibs a carrier and an ESB.

We have roughly 1/3 of our deployable ships tied up on a blockade of a relatively small region of ocean.

This proves we don’t have nearly the number of ships needed for a war against China.
 
cccgong said:

Seems like he was fired due to taking his own initative. We will likley get someone more spineless that listens to Hegsbeth.

No funds requested going forward for FFG(X) how are they going to finish those two hulls..

View attachment 810015
Click to expand...

I doubt FFGX ever floats. Last estimate I saw was it was only 10-12% complete and still undergoing design/redesign.

Probably a more messed up program that we were even told, which is too bad.

Workers were kept busy and on the payroll to preserve the investments made in the facilities and workforce.

I hope someone is studying how that program got so far off the track.
 
Not sure why the SoW keeps entering the discussion as a hold up on FFG(X). Hegseth's track record actually is he doesn't suffer fools too well. He doesn't mind admirals or generals standing up to him when it comes to reality. But let's face it, NAVSEA hasn't been operating well. If FFG(X) hulls are not being finished it is for reasons you probably would not accept. This isn't aimed at Jimmo, moreso the general population of our country.

I like the concept but many of the contracts were rumored to be loaded heavily with irrelevant garbage.
 
cccgong said:
No funds requested going forward for FFG(X) how are they going to finish those two hulls..
Click to expand...

They won't. The ship is rather overweight anyway and likely would be a poor combatant. It's been frozen for several years now, since FMM can't figure out how to make it work without tearing the whole thing down again, and NAVSEA isn't budgeting for more work. It's probably about as bad as USCGC Friedman was before it was canceled.

Maybe in four years they'll ask FMM to build another FFG(X) and get promised hulls in 2042.
 
Kat Tsun said:
They won't. The ship is rather overweight anyway and likely would be a poor combatant. It's been frozen for several years now, since FMM can't figure out how to make it work without tearing the whole thing down again, and NAVSEA isn't budgeting for more work. It's probably about as bad as USCGC Friedman was before it was canceled.

Maybe in four years they'll ask FMM to build another FFG(X) and get promised hulls in 2042.
Click to expand...
They got 650/100M of funds in 2025/2026. So it hasn't been frozen for several years. Also funny thing about a ship being overweight you can usually increase the length of the ship slightly to gain back some margin.

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. It's a similar story with speed, as these do not seem capable of keeping up with CVN's anyways a 1kn speed reduction won't kill the ship.

Regarding damage control, current weapons are so destructive that the Japanese put minimal damage control on the new FFM as they realized a single hit from a heavy ASM would sink the ship. The leaked Chinese datasets showed a single DF-21 would pretty much break the back of a Nimitiz class and sink it. So damage control isn't that important anymore either.
 
Last edited:
cccgong said:
The ship would have been a much better combatant than FFX.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, you get the shipbuilding industry you have, not the one you want. Maybe we can ask Japan or Korea to build something while still building FF(X) for secondary theaters.

cccgong said:
It's a similar story with speed, as these do not seem capable of keeping up with CVN's anyways a 1kn speed reduction won't kill the ship.
Click to expand...

FFG(X) was supposed to be fight in INDOPACCOM as a minimum viable escort-SAG combatant thingy. It needs to keep up with the carriers and can't afford to lose speed. But I think FMM's problems are more immediate than "we don't know how to fix it". Probably something like "paying the wages of our furloughed workers".
 
Kat Tsun said:
FFG(X) was supposed to be fight in INDOPACCOM as a minimum viable escort-SAG combatant thingy. It needs to keep up with the carriers and can't afford to lose speed. But I think FMM's problems are more immediate than "we don't know how to fix it". Probably something like "paying the wages of our furloughed workers".
Click to expand...
Speed is only marginally important these days even for CVN escort. It's just important for transits and a 1kn difference will increase your transit times by ~3% and that's assuming you're going full speed the entire time and burning all the escort's fuel. That's not particuarlly viable with the anticpated logistical issues of fighting in the Pacific.

It's marginally important as it's no longer the cold war where you can hide your battle groups by sprinting after last known contact to create a possible region where the ships are. These days there's continual sat coverage by both EO and radar sats around China so the position of your ships will always be known.
 
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) ?
www.navalnews.com

What's next for the Thales sonar systems destined for cancelled U.S. Navy frigates? - Naval News

Thales gave insights into the CAPTAS-4 Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) systems once destined for the now cancelled Constellation-class of frigates
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
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.
 
I still think we need San Antonio based convoy flagships. They have the well deck for ASW USVs and space for a bunch of ASW helos. The FFs can be smaller and less capable as well by offloading some of the requirements to the San Antonio.
 
Desertfox said:
I still think we need San Antonio based convoy flagships. They have the well deck for ASW USVs and space for a bunch of ASW helos. The FFs can be smaller and less capable as well by offloading some of the requirements to the San Antonio.
Click to expand...
Modern container ships are faster than San Antonios.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

The whole point of recovery is to allow any vessel of opportunity to operate a USV. So the USV has to be small and deployable by crane or boat ramp.
 
I'm not sure ASW helos will be all that relevant much longer. I think the obvious move is to make sonodrones that can land on the surface to run their sensor, and then fly back to the ship to refuel/recharge. Make something like a marine version of a DJI T100 that can carry 220lbs. Stick a 20lb 10kw arc microturbine and 15gal of fuel on it for 3 hours flight time, and you still have ~80lbs for some floats and a sensor that is far more capable than any current sonobuoy. The 2kwh battery on the drone can power the sensor and datalink while it sits on the surface.

You could run these sonodrones from the merchant ships themselves. Add a Mk70 launcher for VL-ASROC and now any container ship can have its own ASW capability. We will probably want a longer range ASW missile, but it shouldn't be hard to make something like a VLS cruise missile that drops a Mk54.

A USV with a big towed array could pick up contacts for the drones to check out, and then you nail them with the Mk70. No ASW warship needed.
 
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.

The whole point of recovery is to allow any vessel of opportunity to operate a USV. So the USV has to be small and deployable by crane or boat ramp.
Click to expand...
That was kinda my point. Those big USVs are not supposed to be needed to be recovered at all. They're as big as they are because that's how big they need to be to haul two towed arrays and/or possibly a hull array.



CastleBravo said:
I'm not sure ASW helos will be all that relevant much longer.
Click to expand...
Helos will still be very important for a whole lot of other roles, besides ASW.

So you might as well have the ASW gear onboard the helo because it will be in the air anyways.

Or do you think the USN would want every ship to have an unarmed cargo helicopter on it?


CastleBravo said:
I think the obvious move is to make sonodrones that can land on the surface to run their sensor, and then fly back to the ship to refuel/recharge. Make something like a marine version of a DJI T100 that can carry 220lbs. Stick a 20lb 10kw arc microturbine and 15gal of fuel on it for 3 hours flight time, and you still have ~80lbs for some floats and a sensor that is far more capable than any current sonobuoy. The 2kwh battery on the drone can power the sensor and datalink while it sits on the surface.

You could run these sonodrones from the merchant ships themselves. Add a Mk70 launcher for VL-ASROC and now any container ship can have its own ASW capability. We will probably want a longer range ASW missile, but it shouldn't be hard to make something like a VLS cruise missile that drops a Mk54.

A USV with a big towed array could pick up contacts for the drones to check out, and then you nail them with the Mk70. No ASW warship needed.
Click to expand...
Or you have Mk41s built into the USV with big towed array(s).

Yes, I am assuming that a couple of VTOL ASW UAVs will be part of the equipment fit of new ships.

You're still going to need a warship to deal with air threats, though.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're still going to need a warship to deal with air threats, though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but FF(X) ain't gonna cut it. Realistically you would want 2+ AAW DDGs to cover the convoy from all angles against sea skimmers from subs. That or an aviation cruiser that can keep AEW UAVs up so you can shoot the missiles over the horizon.
 
CastleBravo said:
Yeah, but FF(X) ain't gonna cut it. Realistically you would want 2+ AAW DDGs to cover the convoy from all angles against sea skimmers from subs. That or an aviation cruiser that can keep AEW UAVs up so you can shoot the missiles over the horizon.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly not sure how much longer convoys will be necessary.

Subs can't hear anything when they're moving faster than 20 knots, so if your convoy is doing 20+ you are just about immune to subs. And the current container ships do average 25kt top speeds.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Modern container ships are faster than San Antonios.
Click to expand...

Scott Kenny said:
I'm honestly not sure how much longer convoys will be necessary.

Subs can't hear anything when they're moving faster than 20 knots, so if your convoy is doing 20+ you are just about immune to subs. And the current container ships do average 25kt top speeds.
Click to expand...
How long can a container ship do 25+kts?

We’ve had this discussion somewhere else in the past, a sub can sprint, slow to listen, adjust course, sprint, repeat, and follow until the ships have to slow down.

Or they just send a brief message out to a satellite that beams it down to any sub with its mast up, then subs ahead of the merchant ships move into a position to strike.

Every time people start to think some thing no longer matters in warfare it seems like it gets proven wrong.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
How long can a container ship do 25+kts?

We’ve had this discussion somewhere else in the past, a sub can sprint, slow to listen, adjust course, sprint, repeat, and follow until the ships have to slow down.

Or they just send a brief message out to a satellite that beams it down to any sub with its mast up, then subs ahead of the merchant ships move into a position to strike.

Every time people start to think some thing no longer matters in warfare it seems like it gets proven wrong.
Click to expand...
For 20 years now Maersk has had a class that was built to do 29 knots from Shanghai to LA with 4000 containers onboard. In practice they usually do 15-20 to save on fuel costs and operate on smaller volume routes. In fact one's stuck in the Gulf right now.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm honestly not sure how much longer convoys will be necessary.

Subs can't hear anything when they're moving faster than 20 knots, so if your convoy is doing 20+ you are just about immune to subs. And the current container ships do average 25kt top speeds.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
And here we go again.

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..."
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom