FFG(X) - NEWS Only

[GruntFox]

Then the issue comes down to the US shipyard industry being incapable of keeping up with the modern demands of military shipbuilding rather than the designs of the ships themselves. Best suggestion is start ordering from overseas and focus on what the US can actually building like large warships and submarines as it’s clearly failing at small surface combatants.

This is 100% a surefire way to kill your procurement program. Those ships are literally job producers in several districts, and you're saying to outsource them.

That'll get your career canned faster than light speed, which is saying something.

The sad reality is that if you want to get anything done, you have to get enough congresscritters' backing. Historically, that was a rarity in the US. The 1990s made Congress literally go back to being the hyper-abusive parent in the US military/Congress relationship.

 

[cccgong]

I suspect that the BBG is going to make a new-run DDGX happen. Production run of ~35ish (+-5) BBG, then the Burke Replacement being a different thing entirely.

I wonder if they will finally go to a sensor + shooter platform for the burke replacement

Bro…the sejong the great is a slightly enlarged copy of the Burke…are you for real? Then there’s the Kongo class, the Atago class, the maya class.
All are basically just Asian burkes.

And what data do you have that says the legend class frigates won’t be able to operate in a ‘mid threat’ environment (whatever that means)?

You mean the class with 2 Korean larger types of VLS one of which launches ballistic missiles, indigenously developed sonar, and a different propulsion setup? The Maya class also has an entirely different propulsion setup. I guess all the euro ships and type 055 are also a Burke copy as they look similar and have planar arrays and vls.

Let me just put it this way, it can't operate alone east of guam.

Fine how about the deagu and incheon class frigates then? Built starting in 2018 and 2012.

You mean a "coastal" ship as defined by the Koreans designed in the early 90s? And the other being a quiet coastal diesel electric ASW boat designed in the mid 2000s (20 years ago) which is more heavily armed than your FFX?

This is also the Korean navy which is mostly concerned about dealing with NK and their midget subs.

They can though. Every ship with a hangar and a flight deck can perform ASW duties.

The FF(X) also can't do ASW as the early builds literally vibrated so much they have to be reworked as to not effect the fatigue life of the hull. You aren't doing any ASW with that boat.

Stop moving the goal posts and just admit you don't know what you're talking about. Also stop spamming the threat and reply to people comments all in one post.

Finally who in their right mind would pay more for the FF(X) than the FFG(X).

 

[Scott Kenny]

There’s been nothing saying BBGX is replacing the DDGX. Where are people getting this from?

DDGX has been canceled, dude.

Were yall criticizing the retro fitted OHPs this much? Just curious since they neutered from FFGs to FFs.

Yes and no. Yes because it was stupid to rip their nuts off entirely, but no because there was no serious AShM threat at the time and no budget to build any SM2s for the Perrys. Perrys were the last SM1-shooters in the USN.

I wonder if they will finally go to a sensor + shooter platform for the burke replacement

I mean, BMD and the rest of the AAW systems means a high-mounted antenna array. Which suggests a fairly large ship in general. Likely in the neighborhood of 15ktons. So a relatively large ship that should be well armed. I'd guess only 96 (or 92) Mk41 cells but a 4 pack of APMs for 12x CPS missiles.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I wonder if they will finally go to a sensor + shooter platform for the burke replacement


You mean the class with 2 Korean larger types of VLS one of which launches ballistic missiles, indigenously developed sonar, and a different propulsion setup? The Maya class also has an entirely different propulsion setup. I guess all the euro ships and type 055 are also a Burke copy as they look similar and have planar arrays and vls.

Let me just put it this way, it can't operate alone east of guam.


You mean a "coastal" ship as defined by the Koreans designed in the early 90s? And the other being a quiet coastal diesel electric ASW boat designed in the mid 2000s (20 years ago) which is more heavily armed than your FFX?

This is also the Korean navy which is mostly concerned about dealing with NK and their midget subs.

The FF(X) also can't do ASW as the early builds literally vibrated so much they have to be reworked as to not effect the fatigue life of the hull. You aren't doing any ASW with that boat.

Stop moving the goal posts and just admit you don't know what you're talking about. Also stop spamming the threat and reply to people comments all in one post.

Finally who in their right mind would pay more for the FF(X) than the FFG(X).

Doesn’t matter how much the ship vibrates if the helo is doing the ASW, no one has moved the goal posts.

Where are you getting paying more for the legend class than the constellation class?
The legends average $640m per hull. Add in some VLS an actual radar and some sonar, you’re looking at $800-900m which is significantly less than the constellations were going to be, coming in at around $1.3-1.7b

I’ll reply to posts as I see them, don’t like it? Not my problem

 

[johnpjones1775]

DDGX has been canceled, dude.




Yes and no. Yes because it was stupid to rip their nuts off entirely, but no because there was no serious AShM threat at the time and no budget to build any SM2s for the Perrys. Perrys were the last SM1-shooters in the USN.



I mean, BMD and the rest of the AAW systems means a high-mounted antenna array. Which suggests a fairly large ship in general. Likely in the neighborhood of 15ktons. So a relatively large ship that should be well armed. I'd guess only 96 (or 92) Mk41 cells but a 4 pack of APMs for 12x CPS missiles.

Where’s your source for DDGX cancellation?

As of last month they were still publishing reports in Congress on it still aiming to begin procurement in the 30s and requested $25.6m for this program for 2026.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11679

 

[Mallard]

We have more burkes currently than just about any other navy has surface combatants total.
When (or there about) the burkes begin decomming we will have (hopefully) DDG(X) will be coming online.
And soon after that we’ll have battleships! /s

Oh cool you have a lot of one ship, well China already has more than 90 major surface combatants and is building more.

As for DDGX that’s been killed off by the orangutans pet project BBGX which will cost more like 10-15 Billion per ship….

Soon after? More like 10 years per ship

 

[cccgong]

Doesn’t matter how much the ship vibrates if the helo is doing the ASW, no one has moved the goal posts.

Where are you getting paying more for the legend class than the constellation class?
The legends average $640m per hull. Add in some VLS an actual radar and some sonar, you’re looking at $800-900m which is significantly less than the constellations were going to be, coming in at around $1.3-1.7b

I’ll reply to posts as I see them, don’t like it? Not my problem

I really think you can’t read. I literally posted a picture in a response to you on NSC cost. It’s 1 billion inflation adjusted a hull that has not been made for a couple years.

I’ll let you go google for the latest cbo and navy ffgx estimates at 1.2 billion.

You also can’t seem to understand how noise works. If it’s super loud as your ship is trying not to shake itself apart, things around it can’t hear the subs.

DDGX has been canceled, dude.




Yes and no. Yes because it was stupid to rip their nuts off entirely, but no because there was no serious AShM threat at the time and no budget to build any SM2s for the Perrys. Perrys were the last SM1-shooters in the USN.



I mean, BMD and the rest of the AAW systems means a high-mounted antenna array. Which suggests a fairly large ship in general. Likely in the neighborhood of 15ktons. So a relatively large ship that should be well armed. I'd guess only 96 (or 92) Mk41 cells but a 4 pack of APMs for 12x CPS missiles.

Sensor shooter in the sense that all of strike along with some extended AD and ASW is offloaded to small drone boats. So you don’t have a ton of missiles that are destroyed when the Burke replacement is hit. The sensor ship would still retain some vls cells and have a huge radar and power generation for lasers.

Delayed Burke replacement may give time for the drone boats to get fleshed out.

 

[Mallard]

There’s been nothing saying BBGX is replacing the DDGX. Where are people getting this from?

You really think the US can spend tens of Billions on Big beautiful waste of money and still afford DDGX?

 

[Mallard]

Bro…the sejong the great is a slightly enlarged copy of the Burke…are you for real? Then there’s the Kongo class, the Atago class, the maya class.
All are basically just Asian burkes.

And what data do you have that says the legend class frigates won’t be able to operate in a ‘mid threat’ environment (whatever that means)?

And like I said they’ve all moved on from the Burke for their future designs. Because Burkes cannot keep up with modern innovations.

Mid threat environment, like the Red Sea for example, they wouldn’t send an LCS with how underarmed it is, so that’s Flt1 FFX out, and Flt2 might have some ESSMs but those ships also had to pull out due to be ineffective at doing tasks like defending convoys let alone themselves.

 

[Mallard]

Wait, do they mean they want to build a batch of frigates that can't even perform anti-submarine duties?

Yes, they’ve no ASW gear and I doubt will be very quiet

 

[Mallard]

Fine how about the deagu and incheon class frigates then? Built starting in 2018 and 2012.

The latest Korean Chungam frigate has a fixed array….

 

[Mallard]

This is 100% a surefire way to kill your procurement program. Those ships are literally job producers in several districts, and you're saying to outsource them.

That'll get your career canned faster than light speed, which is saying something.

The sad reality is that if you want to get anything done, you have to get enough congresscritters' backing. Historically, that was a rarity in the US. The 1990s made Congress literally go back to being the hyper-abusive parent in the US military/Congress relationship.

I understand that part but what is americas priority at this point. A jobs program or actually contending with the Chinese Navy because it’s failing at the latter

 

[joshjosh]

Bro…the constellations were 3/4 the cost of a Burke…we wanted frigates as a cheaper alternative to burkes.

This is not true. As far as we know, the Constellation was going to cost $1.2-1.3B per ship.

In 2020, the CBO pointed out the problem with the Navy's cost estimate, and suggested $1.2B per FFG-62 would be more likely:

In current-year dollars the CBO's estimate would now be a bit higher.

Navy budget documents show $1.2-1.3B per frigate:


Meanwhile, a DDG-51 Flight III costs about $2.7B per:


The Constellation was projected to be about half the cost of a Burke.

 

[Jemiba]

This thread is drifting away into a number of generic discussions, and those even are held as private talks, 1-vs-1 ... the tone has deteriorated anyway ....
Please, back to the original theme, which still is FFG(X). And, please, consider your wording !
Next step will be, that some participants have to watch from outside !

At least, they then would have enough time for reading the forum rules ...

 

[johnpjones1775]

You really think the US can spend tens of Billions on Big beautiful waste of money and still afford DDGX?

We can afford what ever we want to afford.

From a fiscally responsible standpoint no, we can’t. However we have no problem going into massive debt in order to have a big powerful military, and we have seen no evidence of there being a limit to how much debt we can take on from lenders.

 

[johnpjones1775]

And like I said they’ve all moved on from the Burke for their future designs. Because Burkes cannot keep up with modern innovations.

Mid threat environment, like the Red Sea for example, they wouldn’t send an LCS with how underarmed it is, so that’s Flt1 FFX out, and Flt2 might have some ESSMs but those ships also had to pull out due to be ineffective at doing tasks like defending convoys let alone themselves.

I never said that the Burke style design was being used for brand new ships.

 

[johnpjones1775]

This is not true. As far as we know, the Constellation was going to cost $1.2-1.3B per ship.

In 2020, the CBO pointed out the problem with the Navy's cost estimate, and suggested $1.2B per FFG-62 would be more likely:
View attachment 797654
In current-year dollars the CBO's estimate would now be a bit higher.

Navy budget documents show $1.2-1.3B per frigate:
View attachment 797653

Meanwhile, a DDG-51 Flight III costs about $2.7B per:
View attachment 797658

The Constellation was projected to be about half the cost of a Burke.

I will have to find it, but about 3-5 months ago there was an estimate of $1.7b for the 7th hull.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I understand that part but what is americas priority at this point. A jobs program or actually contending with the Chinese Navy because it’s failing at the latter

Well shit yeah, if we cut some of the few decent paying jobs that will help solve the recruitment problem.

 

[joshjosh]

I will have to find it, but about 3-5 months ago there was an estimate of $1.7b for the 7th hull.

I would be grateful if you're able to find that

 

[TomS]

On LCSes they were on the flight deck…so no duh you can’t do flight ops while operating them…but when exactly was the last time any navy was launching missiles and doing flight ops?

You are missing my point. A self-defense missile can't reasonably by hosted in a launcher that can't be held at a ready to launch configuration. You need to be able to just wave off the helo (if any) and them immediately launch your ESSMs or whatever. Waiting to erect the Mk 70 adds a step. Not sure how long it is, but it's not trivial. Mk 70 is primarily for strike missiles that can be fired with deliberate preparation, not quick-reaction weapons.

They absolutely could containerize some Mk 56 tubes for ESSM, but they haven't suggested that.

And even setting aside the launcher issues, these ships have no illuminators, so would be limited to ESSM block 2. They also don't have the data links to cue active seeker missiles. Etc. It's just not as easy as HII are pretending here.

 

[johnpjones1775]

You are missing my point. A self-defense missile can't reasonably by hosted in a launcher that can't be held at a ready to launch configuration. You need to be able to just wave off the helo (if any) and them immediately launch your ESSMs or whatever. Waiting to erect the Mk 70 adds a step. Not sure how long it is, but it's not trivial. Mk 70 is primarily for strike missiles that can be fired with deliberate preparation, not quick-reaction weapons.

They absolutely could containerize some Mk 56 tubes for ESSM, but they haven't suggested that.

And even setting aside the launcher issues, these ships have no illuminators, so would be limited to ESSM block 2. They also don't have the data links to cue active seeker missiles. Etc. It's just not as easy as HII are pretending here.

Block 2 still has a range of 27miles listed publicly. Plenty of range to protect itself and a small number of ships under its protection.

MK70 might take some time to erect, but no one said it was perfect or ideal.
I am not aware of anything that prevents the mk70 from being erected long term. Again not ideal, but still batch 0 are a stop gap, until the following batches arrive.

 

[DWG]

They can though. Every ship with a hangar and a flight deck can perform ASW duties.

First find your sub. Every dedicated ASW combatant uses helicopters to prosecute contacts, not to locate them. FFG(X) isn't hauling around CAPTAS-4 just to be fashionable.

FFG(X) is a sub-hunter, FF(X) is wandering around with its fingers in its ears hoping its MH-60 happens to dip in the right place.

 

[DWG]

I am not aware of anything that prevents the mk70 from being erected long term.

Sea state for one, at a guess. And there's the whole thing with large vertical objects blocking the flightpath onto the helideck being less than optimal.

 

[GruntFox]

I understand that part but what is americas priority at this point. A jobs program or actually contending with the Chinese Navy because it’s failing at the latter

Welcome to politics, I'm afraid. Just remember that, for the US, Congress hates the military with a burning passion and loves to be the epitome of an abusive parent in the relationship.

This is not true. As far as we know, the Constellation was going to cost $1.2-1.3B per ship.

In 2020, the CBO pointed out the problem with the Navy's cost estimate, and suggested $1.2B per FFG-62 would be more likely:
View attachment 797654
In current-year dollars the CBO's estimate would now be a bit higher.

Navy budget documents show $1.2-1.3B per frigate:
View attachment 797653

Meanwhile, a DDG-51 Flight III costs about $2.7B per:
View attachment 797658

The Constellation was projected to be about half the cost of a Burke.

... which makes me angry that it got canceled.

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out that the entire administration is a bunch of plants or pawns... because they're surely acting like them.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It carries the AAW flag, staff and the Flag CIC. That's the critical job. That it happens to also have some CPS missiles, so be it.

1. It can do that job from pretty far away
2. No ship in a CBG can actually keep up with a carrier for more than a few hours at best before they have to slow down.

 

[DWG]

1. It can do that job from pretty far away

To misquote a famous signal at Leyte Gulf:
"WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR THE AAW FLAG RR THE WORLD WONDERS"

2. No ship in a CBG can actually keep up with a carrier for more than a few hours at best before they have to slow down.

It's probably a fair point that the strategic speed of a CVBG is the speed of its oiler.

 

[Yellow Palace]

It's probably a fair point that the strategic speed of a CVBG is the speed of its oiler.

Which is the reason why - or one of them - AOEs were a thing.

The surface combatants can run at high speed until the fuel runs out, though in any kind of sea state things will break and the crew will get very unhappy. That potentially lets the task group run ahead of its logistic support - works out to the oiler showing up two days later on a run from Pearl Harbor to Guam, or four days on a run from San Diego to Taiwan.

Can a carrier provide enough fuel to keep its escorts going for two to four days, alongside intensive air operations? I don't know.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Which is the reason why - or one of them - AOEs were a thing.

The surface combatants can run at high speed until the fuel runs out, though in any kind of sea state things will break and the crew will get very unhappy. That potentially lets the task group run ahead of its logistic support - works out to the oiler showing up two days later on a run from Pearl Harbor to Guam, or four days on a run from San Diego to Taiwan.

Can a carrier provide enough fuel to keep its escorts going for two to four days, alongside intensive air operations? I don't know.

If the question comes down to high speed runs away from the enemy I don’t think they’re slowing down to UNREP. when fuel begins to get too low, I think the escorts will slow, turn and fight, and do their best to empty the enemy’s magazines.

If the question is rushing into a theater the carrier would definitely slow to refuel the battle group as necessary as much as it can.

 

[Jacky]

Honestly, I think the Type 054A/B frigate may be a good reference. For example, extend the hull of the NSC to accommodate 32-cell VLS; replace CODAG with CODLAG to improve hull noise and fuel efficiency; equip only with AN/SPY-6(V)2.

 

[cccgong]

Honestly, I think the Type 054A/B frigate may be a good reference. For example, extend the hull of the NSC to accommodate 32-cell VLS; replace CODAG with CODLAG to improve hull noise and fuel efficiency; equip only with AN/SPY-6(V)2.

At that point you’re better off designing a new ship. And that looks allot like a FFGX. It’s almost as if they knew what they needed

 

[Jacky]

At that point you’re better off designing a new ship. And that looks allot like a FFGX. It’s almost as if they knew what they needed

Normally, it is not difficult to obtain a new hull by using the NSC's hull as a reference model. Unless, they don't have enough design capabilities.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's probably a fair point that the strategic speed of a CVBG is the speed of its oiler.

The US has 2x 25kt AOEs, but the rest of the resupply ships (AKEs and AOs) are 20kt.

Which would allow you 2x carrier groups sprinting someplace and the rest of the AKEs and AOs would catch up in a few days once the carriers were on station.

I suspect that any serious fight would see the USN reactivate the remaining pair of Supply-class AOEs, and build a few more (the Supply class are ~25 years old now). Makes me kinda feel bad for the MSC crews on the AOEs, those guys must be out at sea constantly trying to keep up with 2 of 4 deployed carriers!

 

[Scott Kenny]

There was also a conversation about how many dudes you need manning the guns that got moved that should be mentioned here for completeness.

It works out to about 2-3 actual Gunner's Mates per installed gun, and 4 random mooks per gun moving ammunition from deeper stores into the ready magazines. Even the Mk38s. So a Frigate is going to have very nearly the same amount of gun bunnies as a destroyer, as both have 1 main gun and 4x Mk38s: 15 gunners mates and ~20 UNDES mooks.

And call it 2-3 missile kickers, total number of GMs about 18-20.

 

[Sintra]

Honestly, I think the Type 054A/B frigate may be a good reference. For example, extend the hull of the NSC to accommodate 32-cell VLS; replace CODAG with CODLAG to improve hull noise and fuel efficiency; equip only with AN/SPY-6(V)2.

Even better, pick a foreign 6000 ton ASW Frigate, one already designed with CODLAG, 32 VLS cells, a great big AESA radar on a big main mast and just change a few "bits and bobs"! Quick win, ships on the water for yesterday!

I'l get me coat...

(An NSC with all those changes is in fact a new design)

Cheers

 

[BROF]

From the Cavasships December 5th podcast.

Retired Rear Admiral and former Fincantieri executive Chuck Goddard:

...

...

So basically FFG(X) died from this American illness: obesity.

 

[johnpjones1775]

There was also a conversation about how many dudes you need manning the guns that got moved that should be mentioned here for completeness.

It works out to about 2-3 actual Gunner's Mates per installed gun, and 4 random mooks per gun moving ammunition from deeper stores into the ready magazines. Even the Mk38s. So a Frigate is going to have very nearly the same amount of gun bunnies as a destroyer, as both have 1 main gun and 4x Mk38s: 15 gunners mates and ~20 UNDES mooks.

And call it 2-3 missile kickers, total number of GMs about 18-20.

A little asterisk.
I always just thought of my whole division as GMs but we were technically mixed FCs and GMs but we all worked on gun systems lol.

So to clarify the 5” console could be manned by either a GM or an FC in CIC, but the console in the mount was always a GM on my ship.
OSS for GQ was also only a GM.

So 18-20 GMs and FCs just for guns.

Also the guys in the magazine were all rated sailors from WEPs on my ship. Undesignated sailors were always in the DC lockers.

 

[GruntFox]

So basically FFG(X) died from this American illness: obesity.

No, the bar for entry rose quite significantly since the OHPs got sent to the breakers. We're just in a period of time where the phenomenon is comparatively quick. Again.

 

[Felocie]

I suspect that any serious fight would see the USN reactivate the remaining pair of Supply-class AOEs, and build a few more

Supply class replacement is not a priority yet, Sacramentos served for 40 years and the oldest Supply is only about 30 years old. More pertinently, Supply also doesn't fit DMO so a replacement would have to be more numerous (similar to how AS(X) is also likely going to also be AD(X)). Building for DMO means reducing the impact of losing a single unit (like TAOL) for which Supply is an extremely bad baseline

 

[Scott Kenny]

Supply class replacement is not a priority yet, Sacramentos served for 40 years and the oldest Supply is only about 30 years old. More pertinently, Supply also doesn't fit DMO so a replacement would have to be more numerous (similar to how AS(X) is also likely going to also be AD(X)). Building for DMO means reducing the impact of losing a single unit (like TAOL) for which Supply is an extremely bad baseline

It's a function of what the Supply-class can do: keep up with the carriers on a fast relocation.

They're expensive to operate, yes. Very expensive.

But they're also the only class that can keep up with the carriers when they have to move.

The US doesn't need one Supply class for each carrier group. The US only needs one Supply class for each deployed carrier group, maybe one or two extra in case one is broken. It does mean the Supply-class spends a lot of time out at sea, however. Not the usual USN 6 months out, 6 months in refit, 6 months in workups cycle. But a more civilian style 6 months out, reload, 6 months out likely with a different group, reload, 6 months out with a different group again, reload, etc.

The 20-knot ships you'd use either to accompany a ship on a normal deployment or have them meet a fast-moving carrier group in the middle of the Pacific.

 

[Seragina]

Exactly!
I don't know why people consider this low priority when all available ships have almost 100% uptime. And the numbers are literally the minimum to keep a peace time fleet floating. It's a strategic weakness in war time.
It would be best to have something like a "Liberty"-esque design on hand ready to mass produce when needed. But I'm not so certain about available building capacity.