FFG(X) - NEWS Only

[kqcke for you]

Isn't there some kind of containerized ground air-defense system that can be just welded to superstructure?

Nothing with mutch range

 

[Airbus A340]

While LCS gets a lot of hate, it did some things right. Small crew, minimal AAW suite, very little damage resistance. AIUI the reason to silence the ship is not that the subs will hear it, it is so the sensors have lower signal/noise to deal with. A problem that has arisen recently is antiship ballistic missiles. This raises the bar for AAW suite. Here's the proposal:

Minimal AAW suite for self defense only.
Some drone defenses.
A few canisters for antiship missiles.
Minimal battle damage resistance. Mild steel that is cheap and can be welded easily.
Small crew.
Little or no silencing.
57mm cannon so it looks like a warship.
2 helicopters.
Towed sonars that can deploy far enough from the ship so that self noise is not as much of a problem.
Enough speed to escort amphibs, logistics ships, and merchant ships. Look at commercial engines that are efficient, reliable, and have a robust spare parts supply chain.
Have systems engineers take a look and see if it's worth it to put a high end ECM suite as it can emit freely so others can survive. Maybe just a minimal self defense suite.
Nothing else. No VLS, no worrying about shallow water ASW. This is it. It's a modern Loch frigate. How long should the hull be built to last? As long as the engines can last. Crank them out in large numbers per year so the overhead costs are spread over more hulls per year. Buy in large blocks with no design changes unless a major flaw arises. Buy in multi-year block so the yards can lower their risk. When they wear out, recycle them. Take off the sensors, ECM, etc. and put them on a new vessel. Skimp on maintenance since they are disposable. It should be possible to design this hull pretty easily but it is not so they will need to use a foreign hull or a CG cutter or something. They can't even take one of those and modify it. It just has to be there and be capable of doing the above.

This is the level 1 ship.

Systems engineers can look at having a level 2 ship. What the UK calls "local area air defense", silencing, some battle damage resistance, bow sonar, good ECM, etc. Is it worth it to build these? I strongly suspect it is not, unless the level 1 ship ends up too expensive.

The level 3 ship is the Burke and they need to study a replacement. Anything over 10,000 tons is suspect, anyhting over 12 is verging on being a capital ship. How do they put a first class AAW and BMD suite on a ship and afford it?

The issue here is familiar to anyone who has read the book Kaigun by Evans and Peattie. How do you take on a superior foe with inferior resources? Everything the IJN did made it weaker. Removing armor and self sealing fuel tanks from planes, building super battleships instead of larger numbers of reasonable ships, massive torpedo batteries on DDs and CAs, Kantai Kessen, etc.

 

[Jimmo952]

I can see a few possibilities. One is having MM continue to build the LCS-derived MMSC as were built for Saudi Arabia.

The plus is the line is "warm" and MM has proven they can build them.

Another possibility is the Gibbs and Cox International Frigate as is being built for Taiwan.

Both of these are more corvette than the heavy frigate envisioned with FFGX but maybe they fit in better with the new mantra of "good enough, easy to produce and cheap enough to buy in large numbers."

 

[Deleted member 29851]

Recently I’ve been exchanging emails with a BIW lead naval architect for their F100 derivative.
If the FMM design is really dead, I think we’ll see a clean sheet program or give BIW a call.
Build some MMSCs and do LCS Lethality & Survivability Upgrades Phase II in the interim.

 

[Martes]

Nothing with mutch range

That's quite recent -

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...tem-paired-with-littoral-combat-ship-in-test/

 

[GK. Dundas]

While LCS gets a lot of hate, it did some things right. Small crew, minimal AAW suite, very little damage resistance. AIUI the reason to silence the ship is not that the subs will hear it, it is so the sensors have lower signal/noise to deal with. A problem that has arisen recently is antiship ballistic missiles. This raises the bar for AAW suite. Here's the proposal:

Minimal AAW suite for self defense only.
Some drone defenses.
A few canisters for antiship missiles.
Minimal battle damage resistance. Mild steel that is cheap and can be welded easily.
Small crew.
Little or no silencing.
57mm cannon so it looks like a warship.
2 helicopters.
Towed sonars that can deploy far enough from the ship so that self noise is not as much of a problem.
Enough speed to escort amphibs, logistics ships, and merchant ships. Look at commercial engines that are efficient, reliable, and have a robust spare parts supply chain.
Have systems engineers take a look and see if it's worth it to put a high end ECM suite as it can emit freely so others can survive. Maybe just a minimal self defense suite.
Nothing else. No VLS, no worrying about shallow water ASW. This is it. It's a modern Loch frigate. How long should the hull be built to last? As long as the engines can last. Crank them out in large numbers per year so the overhead costs are spread over more hulls per year. Buy in large blocks with no design changes unless a major flaw arises. Buy in multi-year block so the yards can lower their risk. When they wear out, recycle them. Take off the sensors, ECM, etc. and put them on a new vessel. Skimp on maintenance since they are disposable. It should be possible to design this hull pretty easily but it is not so they will need to use a foreign hull or a CG cutter or something. They can't even take one of those and modify it. It just has to be there and be capable of doing the above.

This is the level 1 ship.

Systems engineers can look at having a level 2 ship. What the UK calls "local area air defense", silencing, some battle damage resistance, bow sonar, good ECM, etc. Is it worth it to build these? I strongly suspect it is not, unless the level 1 ship ends up too expensive.

The level 3 ship is the Burke and they need to study a replacement. Anything over 10,000 tons is suspect, anyhting over 12 is verging on being a capital ship. How do they put a first class AAW and BMD suite on a ship and afford it?

The issue here is familiar to anyone who has read the book Kaigun by Evans and Peattie. How do you take on a superior foe with inferior resources? Everything the IJN did made it weaker. Removing armor and self sealing fuel tanks from planes, building super battleships instead of larger numbers of reasonable ships, massive torpedo batteries on DDs and CAs, Kantai Kessen, etc.

Totalitarian regime's tend not to be overconcerned about their people's survivability.
And an tendency to overrate the appearance of strength hence the building warships with appearance and " perceived status " playing a conscious role in their design and building.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Totalitarian regime's tend not to be overconcerned about their people's survivability.

Human survivability is simple economics, not morals or politics, and it's important to not confuse the two.

For example, the USSR had a higher standard of personal body armor protection than the United States in 1980's, and GOST remains one of the highest personal protective standards alongside the European one. You might as well be saying that because France and England, both democracies, build ships to a lesser protected standard than the United States they are somehow despotic regimes lol.

And an tendency to overrate the appearance of strength hence the building warships with appearance and " perceived status " playing a conscious role in their design and building.

Is the United States a despotic regime for renaming its frigates to cruisers because it saw big missiles on Soviet ships? Is the U.S. Congress an organ of totalitarianism because it got envious of things like Slava or the Italian Durand de la Pennes? Moral wishy-washy just-so stories like this are the enemy of understanding extremely basic economics.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Here's the proposal:

Minimal AAW suite for self defense only.
Some drone defenses.
A few canisters for antiship missiles.
Minimal battle damage resistance. Mild steel that is cheap and can be welded easily.
Small crew.
Little or no silencing.
57mm cannon so it looks like a warship.
2 helicopters.
Towed sonars that can deploy far enough from the ship so that self noise is not as much of a problem.
Enough speed to escort amphibs, logistics ships, and merchant ships. Look at commercial engines that are efficient, reliable, and have a robust spare parts supply chain.
Have systems engineers take a look and see if it's worth it to put a high end ECM suite as it can emit freely so others can survive. Maybe just a minimal self defense suite.
Nothing else. No VLS, no worrying about shallow water ASW. This is it. It's a modern Loch frigate. How long should the hull be built to last? As long as the engines can last. Crank them out in large numbers per year so the overhead costs are spread over more hulls per year. Buy in large blocks with no design changes unless a major flaw arises. Buy in multi-year block so the yards can lower their risk. When they wear out, recycle them. Take off the sensors, ECM, etc. and put them on a new vessel. Skimp on maintenance since they are disposable. It should be possible to design this hull pretty easily but it is not so they will need to use a foreign hull or a CG cutter or something. They can't even take one of those and modify it. It just has to be there and be capable of doing the above.

This is the level 1 ship.

I think you're going to have to do some silencing, you can hear merchant low-speed diesels at pretty significant ranges. Maybe you could get away with just Prairie/Masker, maybe rafted turbines and electric drive.

For defensive measures, I'm going to say just the basics of basics: chaff, flares, Nulka emitter decoys, etc. No fancy EW systems, just the modern equivalent of a smokescreen generator.

My real concern is just how many AA missiles you need. You need enough onboard to handle a week's worth of sailing while Houthis send a couple of missiles at you/your convoy every day, and maybe a volley of 15 at once for the deep ocean submarine attack. That's a good 32 cells worth.

Systems engineers can look at having a level 2 ship. What the UK calls "local area air defense", silencing, some battle damage resistance, bow sonar, good ECM, etc. Is it worth it to build these? I strongly suspect it is not, unless the level 1 ship ends up too expensive.

I admit, I don't know how much a bow sonar helps a surface ship, not when it's streaming one surface towed array and one VDS. A bow sonar may only matter in shallow water.

But back in the day the high ASW ship was the Spruance, and the Zumwalts were supposed to replace the Sprucans. When the Zs were cancelled, the USN started on DDGX. But we don't have any of those around, either. Instead we have 13 new Flight IIA Burkes and 2 Flight III Burkes. Half the number of ships we should have by now. Once all the Burke IIIs are completed we will have more than the planned number of Zumwalts, but currently 10 are Authorized, 3 are Approved for Construction, and 7 are under construction. 1 Burke III is Active, 1 is in Sea Trials, 1 is Christened, and 1 is launched. (As of November 2024) And I'm honestly not sure how good an ASW ship a Burke IIA or III is. Most of the IIAs do not have a towed array at all, for example.

So what I'm getting at is that the USN needs a modern Sprucan. Something fast enough to keep up with carriers and good at ASW. Because it'll be in the carrier group, it doesn't necessarily need as much AA as a Burke.

The level 3 ship is the Burke and they need to study a replacement. Anything over 10,000 tons is suspect, anyhting over 12 is verging on being a capital ship. How do they put a first class AAW and BMD suite on a ship and afford it?

A first-class AAW system needs big radar arrays, especially if you want to add BMD capabilities, which means a physically large ship to carry it around stably. Look at the Japanese ASEVs, those are looking at 14,000 tonnes. The USN DDGX is looking at 13,500 tonnes. Sejong the Great class are 10-12,000 tonnes. And of course the Zumwalts are ~15,600 tonnes, IIRC mostly due to the tumblehome design for stealth.

So I think we really are stuck looking at designs in the 12-14k range for the "first class AAW/BMD" ships.

 

[Creative]

Did Lockheed Martin ever release what their final proposal for FFGX looked like before they withdrew from the competition? All I remember was this untextured render from a trade show.

 

[SK2]

Do we have any indication that NAVSEA changed the design requirements after contract award?

2021: lengthen hull and revised bow
2022: CAPTAS-4
2023-2024: structural changes mentioned in GAO report, which increase plenty of weight

 

[SK2]

Recently I’ve been exchanging emails with a BIW lead naval architect for their F100 derivative.
If the FMM design is really dead, I think we’ll see a clean sheet program or give BIW a call.
Build some MMSCs and do LCS Lethality & Survivability Upgrades Phase II in the interim.

Hope that they can build some without IEP first, so we can have some mature design off to the sea quick enough

 

[Airbus A340]

A modern Spruance is a mistake from the standpoint of cost effectiveness. Once the ship of sufficient quality to be a modern Spruance is built, it will cost between 1 and 2 billion dollars. Probably closer to 2. A quality AAW suite is between 300 and 500 million dollars. Once the life cycle cost is looked at, procurement cost being about 20% of life cycle cost, it makes sense to add the AAW suite so that the ship can do ASW at the top level but also be a good AAW ship.

 

[Ainen]

A modern Spruance is a mistake from the standpoint of cost effectiveness. Once the ship of sufficient quality to be a modern Spruance is built, it will cost between 1 and 2 billion dollars. Probably closer to 2. A quality AAW suite is between 300 and 500 million dollars. Once the life cycle cost is looked at, procurement cost being about 20% of life cycle cost, it makes sense to add the AAW suite so that the ship can do ASW at the top level but also be a good AAW ship.

Spruance had a quality AA suit, too. Just not top of the line one - and realistically, top of the line suit doesn't really add much to a ship on independent missions, nor having multiple such suits is truly necessary for, say, convoy work.
Horizon is same for everyone, after all.

 

[EmoBirb]

Maybe the US Navy can ask CSSC for a couple Type 054As, these would be delivered on time and on budget x)

 

[Deleted member 29851]

2021: lengthen hull and revised bow
2022: CAPTAS-4
2023-2024: structural changes mentioned in GAO report, which increase plenty of weight

NAVSEA does not set arbitrary length requirements, the design yard would do that to meet the pre-set mobility requirements (which they agreed to when taking the contract).
CAPTAS-IV was in the original requirement list.
FMM submitted their design knowing structural changes would be required, agreed they were possible when taking the contract, and thus became responsible for them.

 

[Deleted member 29851]

Hope that they can build some without IEP first, so we can have some mature design off to the sea quick enough

Integrating IEP would require a completely new machinery set up. At that point it’s more effective to either integrate it into Flight I, or start from scratch. Additionally, procurement history shows that “transitional ships” are not worth the effort. See the Zumwalt and Ford programs.

 

[Josh_TN]

Reading between the lines, my impression is drones, drones and more drones. It's drones all the way down, whether anyone likes it or not. There are too many positions that need to be played.

This. Phelan is simply giving up on manned ships altogether, not finding a better way to build them faster.

 

[H_K]

A modern Spruance is a mistake from the standpoint of cost effectiveness. Once the ship of sufficient quality to be a modern Spruance is built, it will cost between 1 and 2 billion dollars. Probably closer to 2. A quality AAW suite is between 300 and 500 million dollars. Once the life cycle cost is looked at, procurement cost being about 20% of life cycle cost, it makes sense to add the AAW suite so that the ship can do ASW at the top level but also be a good AAW ship.

The analogy is interesting because adding the AAW suite to a Spruance gives you a modern day Kidd DDG... which is basically what the Constellation class is.

IMHO that's probably close to the sweet spot in terms of maximum cost-effectiveness... a relatively affordable platform at less than half the cost of a full DDG-51 Flt III (which is more of a cruiser). With still a ton of capability.

LCS
~$400M platform
~$100M electronics and defensive weapons
No real military capability

FFG-62 Constellation
~$650M platform
~$300M electronics (AEGIS, EASR, VDS sonar, SEWIP etc... all domain combat capability minus BMD. Better ASW than any USN ship)
~$60M weapons (MK-41, NSM... good offensive/defensive mix)

DDG-51 Flt III
~$1.5B platform
~$700M electronics (adds AEGIS BMD + SPY-6 + full SEWIP)
~$200M weapons (more MK-41, TLAM, 5" gun)

 

[Deleted member 29851]

LCS
~$400M platform
~$100M electronics and defensive weapons
No real military capability

The final hulls came in around $650-$700M (adjusted for inflation). This is still higher than the anticipated price point in 2003, but not as exaggerated as defense media makes it out to be. The claim they have "no real military capability" is extremely reductionist.

FFG-62 Constellation
~$650M platform
~$300M electronics (AEGIS, EASR, VDS sonar, SEWIP etc... all domain combat capability minus BMD. Better ASW than any USN ship)
~$60M weapons (MK-41, NSM... good offensive/defensive mix)

I believe they were estimating $1.4B for the lead ship, $1.2B for series production (likely in block buys). Definitely not <$1B.

DDG-51 Flt III
~$1.5B platform
~$700M electronics (adds AEGIS BMD + SPY-6 + full SEWIP)
~$200M weapons (more MK-41, TLAM, 5" gun)

This is a fair estimate but note it's for a block buy. A single ship, ordered independently, comes in around $3B iirc.

 

[H_K]

@that_person My numbers come straight from the Navy's own SCN (Ship Construction) budget documents.
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/26pres/SCN_Book.pdf
As for LCS, at the price I mentioned it comes with no ASW, ASuW or AAW capability - which are the key war fighting capability areas that the USN has stated it needs against China (and the reason behind FFG-62). The limited LCS modules (NSM mainly) are not sufficient to enable it to operate in the Red Sea, let alone in a China scenario inside the first or second island chain, so it's unclear what those NSMs would be useful for. LCS certainly won't be tagging along with USN carrier strike groups or surface action groups, neither will it be capable of escorting replenishment ships or amphibs in dangerous waters (which is not a job for drones either, incidentally), so what might its military value be?

 

[Jimmo952]

This. Phelan is simply giving up on manned ships altogether, not finding a better way to build them faster.

This is possible. There is a lot of development around USVs these days anticipating potential US Navy adoption.

That the Navy eventually adopts one or more of these platforms is inevitable.

 

[Deleted member 29851]

My numbers come straight from the Navy's own SCN (Ship Construction) budget documents.

Your own source points out these numbers are for block buys. I didn't say you were wrong, just that there's a few big asterisks.

The limited LCS modules (NSM mainly) are not sufficient to enable it to operate in the Red Sea, let alone in a China scenario inside the first or second island chain, so it's unclear what those NSMs would be useful for. LCS certainly won't be tagging along with USN carrier strike groups or surface action groups, neither will it be capable of escorting replenishment ships or amphibs in dangerous waters (which is not a job for drones either, incidentally), so what might its military value be?

You're right, the navy's only missions are escorting flattops in high-intensity scenarios. You're right my apologies.
The fact you think that NSM integration is part of a mission module shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Ainen]

I agree with your point, but

DDG-51 Flt III
~$1.5B platform
~$700M electronics (adds AEGIS BMD + SPY-6 + full SEWIP)
~$200M weapons (more MK-41, TLAM, 5" gun)

Intentional or not, weapons are underestimated by a factor of >2... even filling 96 cells and searam alone with mean loadout will cost way more than that, and this is before we add actual weapons.

FFG-62 Constellation
~$650M platform
~$60M weapons (MK-41, NSM... good offensive/defensive mix)

Same; weapon suit is underestimated by a factor of two, and that's for 1st ship. Desired ships(48 strike cells) - more like x3. Plus, of course, all of that added a lot to the platform as well.
Honestly speaking, Constellation just should've been built as first proposed, to relaxed standards - as long as it maintained sufficient seaworthiness in Ocean conditions.

 

[H_K]

I agree with your point, but

Intentional or not, weapons are underestimated by a factor of >2... even filling 96 cells and searam alone with mean loadout will cost way more than that, and this is before we add actual weapons.

Same; weapon suit is underestimated by a factor of two, and that's for 1st ship.

Those are the weapons system costs excluding consumables. i.e. Mk-41 launchers and NSM racks without missiles.

The missiles are purchased under separate budgets. Whether or not you include them in the comparison doesn't change the conclusion that an FFG-62 is less than half the cost of a DDG-51, with better ASW capability and inherently better suited to many missions (not only ASW but also ASuW, escorting ships to/from the forward area of operations such as amphibs and replenishment vessels, as well as escorting commercial shipping through SLOCs and chokepoints like the Red Sea or Malacca).

I do agree that Constellation would probably have been just fine built to the original FREMM standards.

 

[SK2]

NAVSEA does not set arbitrary length requirements, the design yard would do that to meet the pre-set mobility requirements (which they agreed to when taking the contract).
CAPTAS-IV was in the original requirement list.
FMM submitted their design knowing structural changes would be required, agreed they were possible when taking the contract, and thus became responsible for them.

The lengthening and the revise bow was still something more than predicted
Regarding the sonar, originally it was supposed to fit SQS-62
With the structural changes (including the generator rooms), the Navy itself is creating more trouble than having a ready to use reliable design

 

[Dilandu]

Spruance had a quality AA suit, too.

Erm. It got RIM-7 NSSMS with Mark 91 FCS based on two Mark 95 fire control radar. Purely self-defense kit; no real area defense capability like Perry's have. Against anything more serious than a lone Tu-95K, Spruance didn't stood a snowball in hell chance.

 

[Deleted member 29851]

The lengthening and the revise bow was still something more than predicted

No…
NAVSEA did not require a hull sonar, and FMM choose to remove it, thus the bow redesign. FMM choose to do that themselves, BIW’s submission had a hull sonar.
And the lengthening was probably done to increase internal volume and restore SLA. PEO Ships didn’t go to FMM and say “lengthen the ship,” they couldn’t care less provided it meets the contracted requirements.

Regarding the sonar, originally it was supposed to fit SQS-62

Which was changed to CAPTAS-IV which has infinitely more reference material and real world application to draw from. This also ignores the VDS fits in an ISO container, with minimal impact on the ship itself. It just needs a door on the stern. If anything, this has larger impacts on the BIW submission because F100 is so cramped as is.

With the structural changes (including the generator rooms), the Navy itself is creating more trouble than having a ready to use reliable design

Which again, were outlined in the initial requires, FMM agreed were possible, and took responsibility of to deliver.
Also calling the base FREMM standards a “reliable design” in USN service id silly. We know the Italian diesels are unreliable at best, and have had issues on the Freedoms.
Additionally, we know absolutely nothing about how Italian design and survivability standards perform in real life. We have ample documentation on how NAVSEA standards perform.
Stark took 2 Exocets and stayed afloat. Similar sized British destroyers foundered in similar situations.
Samuel Roberts had her keel broken and was heavy lifted back to the CONUS.
Cole had a suicide boat driven into her side and she’s still active 25 years later.
NAVSEA standards are hard to meet for a reason, but it seems they perform quite well in real world scenarios. And again, that also ignores that FMM took responsibility for these changes when they signed that contract.

 

[Dilandu]

Stark took 2 Exocets and stayed afloat. Similar sized British destroyers foundered in similar situations.

It was mainly due to absolute ineptness of Royal Navy damage control teams, than any design flaws. Less than 40% of all RN saliors in 1982 have damage control training, the exercises were sporadic (and anti-smoke exercises weren't conducted at all), and officers have no clue how to organize efforts when bridge was filled with toxic smoke.

 

[DWG]

Interesting to read this in the light of the Constellation cancellation
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/11...at-risk-of-costly-rework-schedule-delays-gao/
"Earlier this year, the service halted construction on two of the four OPCs that Eastern Shipbuilding was under contract to deliver as part of the first phase, and the schedule for the first ship is delayed by five years, according to GAO."

It mostly seems to be the usual GAO complaining about beginning construction before final design, but how on earth are the Coasties paying $17Bn for 25 OPCs? That averages out at $680m/ship, or almost twice the cost of a Type 31, despite having no weapon system.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It was mainly due to absolute ineptness of Royal Navy damage control teams, than any design flaws. Less than 40% of all RN saliors in 1982 have damage control training, the exercises were sporadic (and anti-smoke exercises weren't conducted at all), and officers have no clue how to organize efforts when bridge was filled with toxic smoke.

And the complete lack of fireproofing in the bulkhead penetrations.

 

[Firefinder]

Eyeah if you want a ship to take a hit and fucking survive.

You need to design for it.

And that is Expensive.

Sure there's no backlog of hard to make armor plating to worry bout.

But if you don't design with the expectation of this thing going to get hit.

Like the Stairway, as a in a house stairway and not a glorified ladder, of the Italian Thaon di Revel-class offshore patrol vessel superstructure that leads from the top bridge to the CIC that literal being the characterist nose of that design Superstructure?

That a no go for Damcon cause you cannot set up a smoke or fire barrier as well as other issues.

If the FREMM base design had similar issues? And the more I hear bout it, the more it sounds so.

Means NAVSEA muddling was really more likely trying to make a show boat into a proper warship with all that implies. Being able to limp back to port is an amazing way to ensure the most EXPANSIVE bit of the entire ship.

The Crew.


Survives.


Like catorogory a ship that can limp back will have more surivors then those that sink.

If the FREMM Base couldn't do that to US Frigate Standards?

All the issues make much more sense.

 

[EmoBirb]

If the FREMM Base couldn't do that to US Frigate Standards?

All the issues make much more sense.

The Italians have constructed ships before the US as a state even existed. And even in this day and age they are one of the most prominent shipbuilders in Europe together with France. They widely export their modern designs to various navies across the globe, they build frigates, offshore patrol vessels and corvettes for countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. Fincantieri in Italy constructs everything from cruise ships, to research vessels up to modern surface combatants.

You cannot seriously suggest that all the cruise lines and all the military customers would procure their ships if they were not up to stringent safety and damage control standards.

NAVSEA is just incompetent and trying to bring a perfectly good foreign designed vessels up to their weird standards was a doomed undertaking from the start. An undertaking that wasn't necessary anyway.

The USN, NAVSEA and the political portion involved all deserve each other.

 

[Deleted member 29851]

NAVSEA is just incompetent and trying to bring a perfectly good foreign designed vessels up to their weird standards was a doomed undertaking from the start. An undertaking that wasn't necessary anyway.

The base FREMM design fails to meet survivability requirements that the Perry of all things meets. Again, NAVSEA's Level II Survivability standards are high, but not unreasonably so, and they're written in blood. Have Italian standards ever been demonstrated outside of a model basin?

 

[Airbus A340]

As for the standards issue, note that US ships involved in collisions do well, while a European frigate sank. Also, USS Cole and Stark. You get what you pay for and that is the issue. Is it worth it?

 

[Deleted member 29851]

You get what you pay for and that is the issue. Is it worth it?

How many Americans returned home because of it?
And in the case of Cole, she’s still serving 25 years later. Worth every penny.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The Italians have constructed ships before the US as a state even existed.

Yet how little they retain of wartime lessons! American ships can take a cargo ship's impact, multiple cruise missiles, and a large hollow charge warhead, all without sinking. This hasn't been demonstrated by any Mediterranean or Baltic designed fleet frigate. If anything, we have evidence to the contrary.

European vessels broadly suffer from similar issues as Japanese ones in WW2: bad flooding control, bad damage control, high vulnerability to impact and shock, all of which sank a Spanish built Eurofrigate very similar in nature to Italian and Dutch designs. I wouldn't be shocked if they still have fire main and damage control problems, like the British ships in the Falklands did, to this day. Europeans simply stopped being good at building warships sometime in the 1950s. The British alone remained competent, due to WW2, and even that faded eventually.

You can either build a ship competently (slowly) or build it poorly (quickly). Thankfully, the PRC seems to have chosen the latter, since it produces vessels at nearly the same rate as the Spanish, so we can probably expect to be just as squishy as Spanish ships.

As the the standards issue, note that US ships involved in collisions o well, while a European frigate sank. Also, USS Cole and Stark. You get what you pay for and that is the issue. Is it worth it?

NSC is probably fine for a NDRF for convoys. The problem would be finding the personnel to staff the ships. European survivability standards are adequate for an optionally manned robotic picket, too, but nothing you want to put people inside.

 

[Martes]

"Earlier this year, the service halted construction on two of the four OPCs that Eastern Shipbuilding was under contract to deliver as part of the first phase, and the schedule for the first ship is delayed by five years, according to GAO."

That kind of scratches the Legend class from the list of available options, doesn't it.

 

[Deleted member 29851]

That kind of scratches the Legend class from the list of available options, doesn't it.

OPC and NSC aren’t the same ship, or being built in the same yard…

 

[Deleted member 29851]

NSC is probably fine for a NDRF for convoys. The problem would be finding the personnel to staff the ships. European survivability standards are adequate for an optionally manned robotic picket, too, but nothing you want to put people inside.

At that point just buy more LCSs. It’s 80% the capability for a few hundred million less.

 

[Jacky]

NAVSEA is just incompetent and trying to bring a perfectly good foreign designed vessels up to their weird standards was a doomed undertaking from the start. An undertaking that wasn't necessary anyway.

NAVSEA lost design capability for more than 20 years. Who should take responsibility for it? I don't know. Back to WW II, under the supervision of SCB, BuShip designed a lot of warship schedules. Maybe Nimitz class(SCB-250) is the last warship that designed by USN itself?

Admiral Peter Small says NAVSEA is focusing on restoring naval design capabilities. And the Navy handles design of DDGX, if it succeeds, that would be a good thing.