FFG(X) - NEWS Only

TomS said:
FFG(X) had no significant land-attack role, despite Congress pushing to add Tomahawk. It was an ASW platform first and foremost, with the G indicating some area air defense capacity, just as the FFG-7 was an ASW specialist with a small area AAW capacity.
Click to expand...
Significant, no, but NSM has secondary land attack capability, and it isn't particularly bad.
Which btw made tomahawk push all the more harmful.

Granted, more SM-6/Tomahawk cells were useful, but last thing USN lacks is cells. What it lacks is SM-6s.
 
cccgong said:
Find me cost data with a source on the new ships.
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
No, that's a pretty solid cost estimate. Ship from mid production so most of the early/easy efficiencies have already been identified.
Click to expand...
This is above the average costing (as presented by the USCG) and above the fixed cost contracts awarded for later ships. Respectively these were $670 million USD (before the 10th ship is accounted for) and $499.76 million. While I can understand that the first ship may cost this much (or indeed more when we factor in restarting a closed line), successive ships will (much the same as NSC) cost much less and likely the average cost per ship will be lower when compared to NSC due to the maturity of the design
MadRat said:
By the time they are fully equipped I expect a $2 billion price tag.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about. You're thinking it will cost 4/5ths an Arleigh Burke.
 
Desertfox said:
I don't know why we want to put Tomahawks on them when we have no Tomahawks left to put in them
Click to expand...
Theoretically 600 missiles can be produced per year, more than 250 missiles can be procured per year without particular strain on the system. The Tomahawk line is probably the most scalable and best maintained missile production line the US has. It has been recently announced that the US will build the line to produce 1000 missiles per year.
 
At the current time ship costs have significantly soared. They will need to start thinking again in five rates rather than three.

First Rate: BBG(X) and any future CCG(X) on minimal par of Zumwalt
Second Rate: DDG(X) on minimum par with Arleigh Burke Flight III+
Third Rate: FFG(X) on minimum par with Constellation class
Fourth Rate: FF(X) on minimum par with Legend class
Fifth Rate: any other vessels on par with the previous LCS or less

With that in mind some number of Tomahawk belong.
 
Desertfox said:
I don't know why we want to put Tomahawks on them when we have no Tomahawks left to put in them
Click to expand...
Kegsbreath with his "Cult of the Warrior" bullshit probably thinks that whenever people are talking about tomahawks, they're referring to shit like this, and is wondering why everyone talks about these being hard to get hold of:

RMJ-KST-BLK-2__51164.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hi,
With respect to ship costs its important to consider that the amount awarded to a shipyard for the construction of a ship is not the total cost of the ship, as it typically does not include Government Furnished Equipment, etc. Here is a link to an MIT Thesis that helps explain what costs fall into Basic Contract Cost, Lead Ship Cost, Follow Ship Costs, the Total Shipbuilder Portion of the Costs (including change orders), and Total Government Costs (including Other Support, Program Manager's Growth, Combat System GFE, HM&E (including Ship's Boats and Interior Comms) and additional Ship Outfitting Costs (to make the ship ready to operate once delivered by the yard). (https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/44876)

Regards
 
The Navy signed a Fixed-Price Incentive (FPI) contract, which is premised on "a highly stable design". In particular, the original intention of selecting the FREMM as the parent design was to quickly obtain a finished product. However, after the contract was finalized, the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) forced in traditional U.S. Navy specifications with almost obsessive rigidity:


  • NAVSEA insisted on conducting the highest-level shock tests in accordance with U.S. Military Specifications (MIL‑SPEC). They refused to even review European naval standards and simply demanded everything be redone.
  • Internal compartments, watertight doors, and fire suppression systems all had to adopt U.S. Navy designs.
  • Regardless of whether the original FREMM power supply was sufficient, the entire ship’s power distribution architecture had to be revised to meet U.S. requirements.
  • Since the Aegis system was to be installed, they insisted on adding the latest Baseline 10 patches.
  • For anti-submarine warfare, the Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) had to be the most advanced available.


NAVSEA unilaterally rejected European naval standards under the pretext of “survivability assessments.” They showed no regard for compatibility or commonality between European and U.S. systems.
 
fww115 said:
  • For anti-submarine warfare, the Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) had to be the most advanced available.
Click to expand...

In the end the VDS that ended being selected (the latest Thales Captas 4) was exactly the same used on the French FREMM´s and on the latest two Italian ones, so i imagine that particular point was not exactly a major problem.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
fww115 said:
  • NAVSEA insisted on conducting the highest-level shock tests in accordance with U.S. Military Specifications (MIL‑SPEC). They refused to even review European naval standards and simply demanded everything be redone.
Click to expand...
That does deserve abuse and mocking for stupidity.

For refusing to review for compatibility.


fww115 said:
  • Internal compartments, watertight doors, and fire suppression systems all had to adopt U.S. Navy designs.
Click to expand...
So that they can use existing supply lines, instead of having to buy class-specific spare parts from Europe.


fww115 said:
  • Regardless of whether the original FREMM power supply was sufficient, the entire ship’s power distribution architecture had to be revised to meet U.S. requirements.
Click to expand...
Because the US uses 110VAC/60hz (or 400hz) not 220VAC/50hz. And 450VDC for the dewatering pumps and battery packs (don't know what the European DC standard is).


fww115 said:
  • Since the Aegis system was to be installed, they insisted on adding the latest Baseline 10 patches.
Click to expand...
Yes, so that all the Aegis systems are the same. One school for all the radar techs.


fww115 said:
  • For anti-submarine warfare, the Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) had to be the most advanced available.
Click to expand...
It's a freaking ASW ship, it had better have the best available VDS!
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's a freaking ASW ship, it had better have the best available VDS!
Click to expand...
Navy originally picked Raytheon in May '17 for the new Dart SQS-62 an all digital VDS originally for the LCS in preference to the CAPTAS-4 but under testing DART exhibited hydrodynamic instability and transducer performance/unreliability problems and was terminated March '22.

Navy then reverted back to the well proven Thales (France) CAPTAS-4 VDS though to be manufactured in US, presuming to gain Congress funding.
 
Felocie said:
I don't understand why all analysis of current events in this place is based upon Cold War conditions, also this is just dumb
Click to expand...

Because the USSR in the 1980s was probably the last time America was seriously threatened at sea in any real terms.

Relative to the U.S., the Soviets had overmatch in anti-ship air and undersea platforms, and an extensive satellite surveillance network, which meant carriers had to operate in FCTFs to survive. The Chinese only have one of these, and it's rather unlikely they will achieve the former two before the 2040s when the USN's submarine cliff arrives, so call it 10-20 years of non-investment before the PLA becomes a Soviet level threat to the USN i.e. regional sea control with advanced aircraft, equivalence or superiority in submarine platforms and a real-time satellite observation/targeting system over the Pacific.

That assumes no real changes in production or delivery of ships to DOD beyond the current schedules and maybe a few more delays for USN.

The U.S. as of now is able to keep China as a modest threat to Japan and Taiwan by spending less than 4% of its GDP on DOD. In the 1980s it was closer to 6-7% of its GDP, so about double what it would be now. China can probably still keep up with a $1.5-1.6 trillion defense budget from DOD, but it would be much harder to pace that budget, at least without cutting into their civilian economic investments.

If the U.S. gets closer to the hull cliffs without meaningful change in ship schedules, it will simply start ratcheting up its defense spending for a presidential term or two, and the Chinese will find it harder to pace (they have a weirdly sluggish MIC in their own right), and this would probably translate to getting the LHAs, carriers and SSNs sorted out within a couple years, and back on track for long leads within 5 years, in real terms. I'm not sure there's much that can be done in a decade of high investment quickly in any other manner for shipbuilders since U.S. yard expansions are somewhat glacial. They can definitely send out ships as fast as the PRC though.
 
Last edited:
fww115 said:
Since the Aegis system was to be installed, they insisted on adding the latest Baseline 10 patches.
Click to expand...

Baseline 10 is the only version of the AEGIS Weapon System designed to work with SPY-6, so it was kind of a package deal. From a computing hardware perspective, though, it's basically the same as Baseline 9. So that's not a significant design impact. BL10 also improves how AWS handles active missiles, which is important because the FFGs can't use semi-active ones (no illuminators).
 
Kat Tsun said:
Because the USSR in the 1980s was probably the last time America was seriously threatened at sea in any real terms.

Relative to the U.S., the Soviets had overmatch in anti-ship air and undersea platforms, and an extensive satellite surveillance network, which meant carriers had to operate in FCTFs to survive. The Chinese only have one of these, and it's rather unlikely they will achieve the former two before the 2040s when the USN's submarine cliff arrives, so call it 10-20 years of non-investment before the PLA becomes a Soviet level threat to the USN i.e. regional sea control with advanced aircraft, equivalence or superiority in submarine platforms and a real-time satellite observation/targeting system over the Pacific.

That assumes no real changes in production or delivery of ships to DOD beyond the current schedules and maybe a few more delays for USN.

The U.S. as of now is able to keep China as a modest threat to Japan and Taiwan by spending less than 4% of its GDP on DOD. In the 1980s it was closer to 6-7% of its GDP, so about double what it would be now. China can probably still keep up with a $1.5-1.6 trillion defense budget from DOD, but it would be much harder to pace that budget, at least without cutting into their civilian economic investments.

If the U.S. gets closer to the hull cliffs without meaningful change in ship schedules, it will simply start ratcheting up its defense spending for a presidential term or two, and the Chinese will find it harder to pace (they have a weirdly sluggish MIC in their own right), and this would probably translate to getting the LHAs, carriers and SSNs sorted out within a couple years, and back on track for long leads within 5 years, in real terms. I'm not sure there's much that can be done in a decade of high investment quickly in any other manner for shipbuilders since U.S. yard expansions are somewhat glacial. They can definitely send out ships as fast as the PRC though.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear about IDT :(
 
Kat Tsun said:
TLAM production is very low but I think the obvious counter-example is that the TLAMs in Burkes would be swapped for SM-whatevers.
Click to expand...
TLAM production is low but rapidly speeding up, very rapidly.. and just because the production was low for a few years, doesn’t mean the overall stockpile is,
 
The stockpile is low now. We just blew a whole bunch of them on Iran and a bunch of SMs as well.
 
Desertfox said:
The stockpile is low now. We just blew a whole bunch of them on Iran and a bunch of SMs as well.
Click to expand...
Thought experiment for you: How many Burkes in the USN right now? 76.
At a rough guess, how many Tomahawks do they normally load? 20 for sake of argument?
How many subs? 49 attack subs (some sources say 53, but maintenance backlogs and we're not counting the Seawolfs), 4 SSGNs.

That means the USN has at least 1520 in the Burkes, ~600 in the attack subs, and another 600ish in the SSGNs; for a total of 2700 or so loaded onto ships. (We can make an argument that only about 1800 or so are actually loaded on ships, since 1/3 of the fleet is in maintenance with the missiles offloaded.)

That doesn't count reloads, that is purely what is loaded onto ships. So let's assume only 1 reload per missile per ship, so 1800 to 2700 times 2 for fleet+stockpile of 3600 to 5400. And that is a really minimal assumed stockpile size for something the US uses a lot for "gunboat Tomahawk diplomacy."

Add a known build rate of ~75 per year that is supposed to be scaling way up to ~1000 for FY2026.
 
The Tomahawk stockpile remains sufficient for the normal strike platforms (DDGs, SSNs, and SSGNs) though this is clearly a significant hit. I think a large proportion of the increase will be in preparation for large-scale introduction of MUSVs. If they field dozens or hundreds of USVs, each carrying 8 or 16 Tomahawks in Mk 70 containerized launchers, that would add a huge amount of extra capacity to fill. At-sea reloading would also give shooters the opportunity to reload more often and therefore give them a higher rate of fire over the course of days or weeks.
 
And thats not allowing for the fact that Tomahawk is not a stealthy missile so may need multiple shots to get through an advanced air defence or EW.
 
I believe when people mention Tomahawk they really are speaking of the role, not necessarily just that missile. Articulation of strike length missile tubes just does not convey the role properly.
 
MadRat said:
I believe when people mention Tomahawk they really are speaking of the role, not necessarily just that missile. Articulation of strike length missile tubes just does not convey the role properly.
Click to expand...
Thing is the Tomahawk IS the SOLE missile in it Role in the entire Navy.

Hell its one of like three in its freaking range bracket in the entire Force. That being a 1000 miles with a 1000pounds of bomb in.

The only missiles in the military that has that range is the JASSMERs, MAYBE, and... Actually no I believe that it. The other I was thinking of is retired, being the ALCM family. That was the only other weapon system that has the same or greater range of the Tomahawk til it was retired over half a decade ago in 2019.

Even the SM6 in full surface strike mode of the Army maxs out at an expected 400 miles and only carries what, a 200 pound warhead? The JASSMER has a 1000 pound bomb but only has maybe 300 miles more range at 700, with it listed as greater then 575.

For the navy... Yeah just the JASSMER for the long-range air launch weapons...

The Army has the Black Eagle Hypersonic but that still in development hell with like only 2 batteries in the force so...

In its Role Bracket the Tomahawk is the only thing in the entire US military.

If the navy is launching stuff from ships to attack land targets.

It going to be the Tomahawk.

Not counting the USELESS nukes, useless in that they are NEVER GOING TO BE USED so can be ignore 99 percent of the for these arguments. Those have their own dedicate weapons, even if it shares a common frame.
 
Firefinder said:
Thing is the Tomahawk IS the SOLE missile in it Role in the entire Navy.

Hell its one of like three in its freaking range bracket in the entire Force. That being a 1000 miles with a 1000pounds of bomb in.

The only missiles in the military that has that range is the JASSMERs, MAYBE, and... Actually no I believe that it. The other I was thinking of is retired, being the ALCM family. That was the only other weapon system that has the same or greater range of the Tomahawk til it was retired over half a decade ago in 2019.

Even the SM6 in full surface strike mode of the Army maxs out at an expected 400 miles and only carries what, a 200 pound warhead? The JASSMER has a 1000 pound bomb but only has maybe 300 miles more range at 700, with it listed as greater then 575.

For the navy... Yeah just the JASSMER for the long-range air launch weapons...

The Army has the Black Eagle Hypersonic but that still in development hell with like only 2 batteries in the force so...

In its Role Bracket the Tomahawk is the only thing in the entire US military.

If the navy is launching stuff from ships to attack land targets.

It going to be the Tomahawk.

Not counting the USELESS nukes, useless in that they are NEVER GOING TO BE USED so can be ignore 99 percent of the for these arguments. Those have their own dedicate weapons, even if it shares a common frame.
Click to expand...
They have also managed to waste 1900 JASSM-ER against Iran of all countries. When after the first day or two, they should’ve been dropping gravity bombs. Basically the entire cruise missile stock pile is gone.

I doubt there’s a tomahawk reload for all the Burkes left either.

https://fortune.com/2026/04/04/us-jassm-er-stealthy-long-range-missile-iran-war-munitions-supplies/
Production also isn’t anticipated hit 1000 a year until 2033
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachme...1e6d87f217afbac6e5f763cc03a49a3451b84d0c3926&
 
Last edited:
cccgong said:
They have also managed to waste 1900 JASSM-ER against Iran of all countries. When after the first day or two, they should’ve been dropping gravity bombs. Basically the entire cruise missile stock pile is gone.

I doubt there’s a tomahawk reload for all the Burkes left either.

https://fortune.com/2026/04/04/us-jassm-er-stealthy-long-range-missile-iran-war-munitions-supplies/
Production also isn’t anticipated hit 1000 a year until 2033
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachme...1e6d87f217afbac6e5f763cc03a49a3451b84d0c3926&
Click to expand...
This is such as insane waste of high end resources... So many of those targets should/would have been struck by AGM-190A, Kratos Ragnorak, RAACM, Barracuda-Ms etc had they been available.
 
cccgong said:
They have also managed to waste 1900 JASSM-ER against Iran of all countries. When after the first day or two, they should’ve been dropping gravity bombs. Basically the entire cruise missile stock pile is gone.

I doubt there’s a tomahawk reload for all the Burkes left either.

https://fortune.com/2026/04/04/us-jassm-er-stealthy-long-range-missile-iran-war-munitions-supplies/
Production also isn’t anticipated hit 1000 a year until 2033
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachme...1e6d87f217afbac6e5f763cc03a49a3451b84d0c3926&
Click to expand...
I can't lie, the news has also been saying Russia is a week away from total collapse for going on 4 years at this point. Let's be slightly reasonable
cccgong said:
I doubt there’s a tomahawk reload for all the Burkes left either.
Click to expand...
The article states there were 4000 missiles in US reserves and "hundreds" have been fired...
Kat Tsun said:
Everything on the tiny BMDette is based on a true story too. Especially the giant brass telescope.
Click to expand...
10-10 in my books
 
Scott Kenny said:
So that they can use existing supply lines, instead of having to buy class-specific spare parts from Europe.
Click to expand...

If you want a ship in a hurry, you take it no matter the need to source spare parts from outside of your normal channels. The USN is perfectly happy buying mission critical aerospace components such as flight control systems* from Europe, so why wouldn't they take hatches and similar low tech components?

It does make me wonder whether Fat Leonard or someone similar had an investment (ahem!) in the existing supply chain.

Scott Kenny said:
Because the US uses 110VAC/60hz (or 400hz) not 220VAC/50hz. And 450VDC for the dewatering pumps and battery packs (don't know what the European DC standard is).
Click to expand...
There's slightly more of a case here, but opting for an existing design as a crash programme still implies taking as much of it at the existing standard and paying to deal with the issues that creates. It's not as if frequency converters and transformers are an unknown technology.

* And the entire back third of every F-35B or C.
 
Felocie said:
I can't lie, the news has also been saying Russia is a week away from total collapse for going on 4 years at this point. Let's be slightly reasonable

The article states there were 4000 missiles in US reserves and "hundreds" have been fired...

10-10 in my books
Click to expand...
More than 850 (let’s call that 900) have been fired over a week ago. They are still firing them that’s 200 a week ish. So they are well over 1000 by now, with an expected large surge tonight if bridges and power plants will be hit.

So I’m skeptical there will be reloads left, and tomahawk production rates are 200 a year right now

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/27/iran-war-tomahawk-missiles/
 
DWG said:
The USN is perfectly happy buying mission critical aerospace components such as flight control systems* from Europe, so why wouldn't they take hatches and similar low tech components?
Click to expand...
I think you'd find this is a Congressional issue, not a DoN issue for the record. I believe there were similar requirements for LCS
cccgong said:
They are still firing them that’s 200 a week ish
Click to expand...
Source?
cccgong said:
and tomahawk production rates are 200 a year right now
Click to expand...
I thought current production rates were slightly lower. This morning they requested funding for the procurement of 785 missiles, off the top of my head the line has historically had a maximum capacity of 600 a year. With recent news that the US will aim to increase the capacity of the line to greater than 1000 I don't see why it won't be possible to replenish stocks with decent rapidity over the next few years.
DJK said:
And thats not allowing for the fact that Tomahawk is not a stealthy missile so may need multiple shots to get through an advanced air defence or EW.
Click to expand...
The new variants are indeed low observable via coatings and some other changes. I am unsure if this is backfittable. I would guess the bulk of TLAMs being fired are old stocks anyway given the seriously degraded EW and air defense, similar to the old TLAMs launched on Boko Haram
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
$1.85 billion just for two studies? No wonder the USN can't afford to buy ships anymore, Excel spreadsheets cost more than a DDG it seems.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it's just crazy. Especially when we already know the answer.

We know that Naval Group can deliver an FDI frigate for half that price ($930M - Greek contract price), with high end AAW and ASW capabilities. Fincantieri has similar prices. Both can build fast and at scale (~36 months for a frigate from first steel cut to sea trials, 2x per year). Elsewhere in Europe, Navantia & Damen have even lower prices with lower cost workforces in Spain and Romania. Now turn to Asia and the Japanese are very competitive and the Koreans offer the lowest prices of all. All these yards have modular designs with modular build strategies where different hull sections are built in different yards, sometimes across different countries and language barriers. It's all been done before... you don't need a study, just hire any one of these yards and they already know how to deliver.

It wouldn't be hard to pick an off-the-shelf design from one of these big yards, install USN weapons (MK41 VLS, NSM, RAM, 57mm gun) and subcontract hull modules at scale across US and foreign yards. Assemble at both a US yard and a foreign yard. I would wager even COMBATSS-21 or a variant of AEGIS CMS could be installed without too much difficulty, plus various USN sensor & comms systems. But please for the love of god don't touch the platform below the main damage control deck... none of this "we need to meet NAVSEA standards" BS.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom