TCG Muavenet was a WW2 era destroyer. Extremely bad example.
Boxer was built between '79 and '81, she was pre-Falklands. Nothing would have been changed to the extent that modifications were made to Constellation, surely?
The USN has proven its damage control standards after hitting mines and being struck by missiles. The constant argument to reduce them is both ridiculous and worn out. Now can we get back to FFG(X) and make substantive arguments for the topic? Or will you, as so many have, consistently continue to derail the topic with trivial matters as such arming cargo ships while genuine analysis or cited information is ignored? Or will you, as so many have, persist in the myth that US shipbuilding is utterly failed and worthless while ignoring programs that clearly demonstrate neither is the case?
Well, if they use the existing in-production hull - either one of LCS, or Coast Guard large cutters - and just up-gun it with additional missile launchers, it might be actually possible.
The National Security Cutter is no longer in production. NSC has a certain degree of equipment (a small number of VLS, RAM, SVTT, etc.) fitted for but not with (FFBNW) however to meet any sort of standard it would need a significant redesign, likely a hull plug for expanded VLS, an all new stern for a VDS and TA, etc.
Well, they were in production till 2024, so re-starting the run - at least in terms of hulls - would likely be possible without much troubles. Yes, it would likely require more redesign than LCS (which were designed with large spaces in mind), true.
My concept was to design a cheaper ship than MMSC, mostly relying on existing LCS hardware.
Not really, the entire line has been retooled and so building NSCs now means essentially starting from scratch. Not the difficulties with the Burke Flt II restart as an example of how deceptively difficult it can be
This ship is useless, you would do better to refit existing hulls. Building new hulls that are less capable than MMSC is worse than building nothing at all
Frankly, extending the NSC hull to accommodate 32 Mk41 launchers and anti-submarine equipment is theoretically feasible.
Ingalls identified it as a subpar solution, This is why they switched to a T31(?) derived entry for FFG(X).
I don’t understand what you mean by “balancing conflicts”. There were no conflicts. FMM was contracted for a design and couldn’t meet the design requirements. NAVSEA was arguably naive to believe that the design would work as advertised but that doesn’t change because the SCB exists.
According to GAO’s report in 2024, "continuous design changes due to the U.S. Navy's constantly evolving requirements" is one of the reasons for the Constellation-class delays. This indicates that the Navy simply doesn't know what performance it actually needs. How can a ship design be completed without clearly defining primary and secondary performance requirements? The purpose of the Ship Characteristics Board (SCB) is to introduce an arbitrator between the fleet user and the ship designer, in order to eliminate unreasonable requirements from the fleet user that cause confusion for the designer.
False, it indicates that requirements are shifting extremely quickly. This is a trend across the military, for instance the US Army has struggled to integrate drones into there arsenal due to the rapidly shifting nature of drone technology and strategy.
There are clearly defined performance requirements, it’s just that to meet those requirements there is a need for constant system modification. There is no proof that structural requirements changed, and structural requirements have been cited as the main cause of program failure. The problems they refer to would likely be a SPAWAR issue.
A hull plug does not substantially modify the complexity of the ship, America has done it for Burkes, Ticos, etc. Similarly modifying electrical and piping is needed to meet requirements. If FMM couldn’t do it then they shouldn’t have bid a design they couldn’t build.
Nice quote from Wikipedia there. NAVSEA no longer has a serious in house design capability, that’s why they didn’t do design work for FFG(X). NAVSEA served to coordinate Navy and Industry cooperation throughout the Constellation class program, essentially filling the role you describe. Again, this is directly from the head of BIW’s design who described the program as “very well run”. Do you know better than him?
Very well run but ultimately unsuccessful. We are measured by success, not by how well we followed the script.
You’ll do anything but blame FMM for overpromising a design they couldn’t deliver, huh. Yes, there is a decent argument to be made that NAVSEA should’ve picked up on it being too good to be true so to speak but no other offer presented the full spectrum of capabilities Navy was looking for. Logically FMM was the only choice, practically accepting some compromises for BIWs bid was the better choice
Don't worry, NAVSEA safety standard will ensure that China can launch 10 torpedos at any US ship and it will stay afloat after these 10 hits, someone very knowledgeable told me so.
As mentioned previously the primary mission of the FFG(X) was stated to be ASW and as the BIW-Navantia Spanish F100 was an AAW ship with unsilenced CODAG propulsion and did not have the current de facto standard spec for a ASW frigate with a quiet hull/hybrid electric propulsion and so ruled itself out whereas FREMM did comply.
This is completely different from drones, which are emerging technologies. The RFI of the Constellation-class corvettes does not include any emerging technologies. VLS and CODLAG are all existing, mature technologies.
I’m not even going to bother with your arrogant bullshit. Frankly it is embarrassing that you can’t debate an argument in good faith or present a point with a modicum of understanding of the topic at hand. Standards are abhorrent if you are the standard.
Frigates, bordering on small DDGs*
Hardware is a comparatively small chunk of what I am discussing.
The US government pushed most hard for the modification of an existing design. The FREMM based design was the only design that had the whole package the Navy wanted, especially IEP. FREMM may be behind schedule but, as proven by the decision to build two hulls, the design is indeed ultimately workable. All the RnD costs will still be paid for.
These are normal changes that any good design team should account for. Same with changing parts from European to American built. These are nessecary, common sense changes.
You should be optimistic given there has already been a significant effort to do so for DDG(X) and they have met that requirement. A bigger problem is that they can’t seem to fulfil more than one program requirement at once in house
That doesn’t make sense, the navy has programs they could assign to FMM. Paying for all the RnD and only building two ships lends more credibility to a “requirements have changed” argument than a “the program isn’t workable” argument
The best damage control is to not get hit at all. I'm 1000% willing to sacrifice some survivability in the form of build standards to save some money for either more hulls, better radars, better LO, better missiles.
Sacrificing survivability has never ever lead to better radars, missiles, etc. They are two fundamentally different parts of the construction of a USN warship. They are not mutually exclusive.
This doesn’t make sense on a few levels. First, survivability mitigates a mission kill such that it allows for quicker repair and turnaround. So that a hit that damages sensors just damages sensors and doesn’t write off the hull.
You can have cheaper hulls and hence more or more capable hulls for the same total cost. Or in this case not have killed ffg(x) due to needing to redesign for survibility standards, which results many fewer hulls likely delayed by close to a decade.
1) You're missing the point. You the hull doesn't matter if your radars, sonar, hybrid propulsion etc don't work/exist as there's a many year lead time.
You do know that this is entirely contrary to American doctrine and naval thinking? This was studied and deemed as less effective.
This is a nonissue given US procurement accounts for this sand the focus is maximising hull survivability so that the navy doesn’t run out during a peer conflict. Again, all sensor, weapons, etc. production will be prioritised away from new builds as per US Doctrine
Same argument again, new builds will be deprioritised and production will be diverted to maintain existing hulls. This is as per US studies which have demonstrated a mobilisation frigate, transport, etc. are all useless in the modern age. Longlead items are a comparably small issue when compared to the complexity of shipbuilding.
Is that why the Constellation program was specifically designed to be mostly available after the likely 2027 year for war with China? The idea that you only build for one war at a time is not just shortsighted but contrary to common sense and US doctrine.
Having excess crew does help, especially when the alternative you propose is more dead sailors and officers
Foreign designs don’t meet American needs. Only a clean sheet or heavily modified design works. Pumping out FREMMs as built in Italy would have the same result; a compromised design unfit for American requirements.
The problem is that American strike power is carrier centric. Spamming out cheap FFGs detracts from the carrier because they can’t effectively engage the primary threats (submarine and missile)
Also this is batshit insane to say and proof the average commentator on defence has no appreciation for the costs of war
But roughly equivalent to legacy PESA systems iirc
That's a very antagonistic stance. I would say the same of you. I can see what that posted who knew some shipyard heads left the forum.
These are another 2 points.
I'd argue that the Submarine design standards are sufficiently different that it's not particularly feasible to merge all three together. And frankly, carrier and small boy standards are also likely different enough that it's not feasible to merge them, either.
Yes, of course they were. Meeting OPNAV 9070 was a precursor to submitting a design and FMM said that they could do it. I believe they vastly underestimated the design changes and focused on the capability they could deliver instead of the realities of delivering this capability. I believe the other, more experienced teams likely delivered the maximum that their hulls could practically offer which appeared lacking when compared to FMM.
FMM was inexperienced and their team mostly consisted on those who had previously worked on LCS which was designed to a lower survivability standard. There project lead was a mostly political and administrative appointee, not a naval architect (a former admiral who had studied telecommunications and bacteriology iirc).
The change in design standards certainly dragged out the design process however the failure of the project shouldn't be laid upon the standards, it should be laid upon the political processes which forced a modified foreign design and not a purpose built ship. The standards aren't the problem, politics was. They should've never forced a foreign built design which was a political choice.
DDG(X) is already a mostly in house design from what I understand, with subcontracted support.
I wonder how similar it would be, I would guess surface ship quieting would be markedly different given propulsion systems, operating speeds, etc.
