FFG(X) - NEWS Only

[Felocie]

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.

i don’t entirely disagree but again, I’m not sure that aligns with US naval strategy. It still places an outsized burden on large, valuable platforms. Prepositioned distributed assets are just preferred.

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.

No it wouldn’t because you’re living in a fantasy if you think mobilisation ships are realistic nowadays. PD-214 thouroughly put this theory to rest in the 70s and the defining logic has only become more true today. Even if shipyard numbers were the same as WW2, ships take too long to build and are too complex to create a mobilisation ship. It would go a little like “congrats, the first Liberty II is ready and the war ended two months ago”

 

[Scott Kenny]

i don’t entirely disagree but again, I’m not sure that aligns with US naval strategy. It still places an outsized burden on large, valuable platforms.

Again, having 4-6 Supply-class (equivalents) would give a unique capability for rapidly redeploying a whole carrier group.

The "outsized" burden is an unfortunate fact of the way ships work.

Prepositioned distributed assets are just preferred.

We call those targets.

What happens when the Chinese (or whoever the enemy du jour is for the coming conflict) blow up the forward deployed supply ships?

 

[Felocie]

would give a unique capability for rapidly redeploying a whole carrier group.

It’s a hard sell when future LSC transit times and loiter times are increasing and decreasing respectively. While I can see the logic with legacy, short legged ships, I don’t see how slower, more numerous assets can’t fill future gaps tho. Not that I’m against Supply class replacements at all, I do see the utility in them but they aren’t a priority, nor are they strictly the strategic necessity they can be made out to be

What happens when the Chinese (or whoever the enemy du jour is for the coming conflict) blow up the forward deployed supply ships?

That’s an unbelievably ill considered and not altogether reasonable statement. Your assertion that forward deployed supply ships are just bobbing about undefended is a little behind the earth being flat as far as ridiculous claims go. Distributed assets doesn’t mean assets aren’t subject to protection, that’s just common sense

 

[Kat Tsun]

i don’t entirely disagree but again, I’m not sure that aligns with US naval strategy. It still places an outsized burden on large, valuable platforms. Prepositioned distributed assets are just preferred.

No it wouldn’t because you’re living in a fantasy if you think mobilisation ships are realistic nowadays. PD-214 thouroughly put this theory to rest in the 70s and the defining logic has only become more true today. Even if shipyard numbers were the same as WW2, ships take too long to build and are too complex to create a mobilisation ship. It would go a little like “congrats, the first Liberty II is ready and the war ended two months ago”

China could use a mobilization ship in a run-up to a conflict.

The British began rearming in 1935. The Germans in 1933. Their wars didn't start for over half a decade after. That's enough to produce perhaps four to eight series runs of warships, depending on how many corners you want to cut (i.e. fitted for but not with) and more as the war goes on. They typically run 200-250 day keel to launch on their commercial vessels.

America hasn't had that type of shipyard capacity since the beginning of Vietnam, commercially speaking, though. It probably could with the NSCs. They typically ran about 350-380 days at peak speed. The only issue would be getting the long leads in place before the war starts for that initial couple of batches so you have a continuous flow, much like munitions, AFVs, etc.

The only hurdle for mobilization ships is the fact that mobilizations never happen anymore. Just like declarations of war. The MRAP program during the Long War is probably the only example of an effective, modern mobilization of industry since Vietnam for the U.S.

 

[Felocie]

China could use a mobilization ship in a run-up to a conflict.

The British began rearming in 1935. The Germans in 1933. Their wars didn't start for over half a decade after. That's enough to produce perhaps four to eight series runs of warships, depending on how many corners you want to cut (i.e. fitted for but not with) and more as the war goes on. They typically run 200-250 day keel to launch on their commercial vessels.

America hasn't had that type of shipyard capacity since the beginning of Vietnam, commercially speaking, though. It probably could with the NSCs. They typically ran about 350-380 days at peak speed. The only issue would be getting the long leads in place before the war starts for that initial couple of batches so you have a continuous flow, much like munitions, AFVs, etc.

The only hurdle for mobilization ships is the fact that mobilizations never happen anymore. Just like declarations of war. The MRAP program during the Long War is probably the only example of an effective, modern mobilization of industry since Vietnam for the U.S.

What you describe is not a liberty ship, it's somewhat more in line with the PD-214 study results.

Also the idea of NSC as a mobilization frigate is... questionable to say the least. They're expensive for what they are and don't have a role within USN fleet architecture during peacetime and LIC (despite being optimized for peacetime and LIC USCG operations). Building them is one thing but utilizing them is something else

 

[Kat Tsun]

What you describe is not a liberty ship, it's somewhat more in line with the PD-214 study results.

Also the idea of NSC as a mobilization frigate is... questionable to say the least.

America has basically zero shipbuilding capacity since the 90s. It can't make mobilization ships. China probably has a few designs sitting on shelves. If America weren't stupid, it would have leaned harder on Japanese and South Korean industries for this support and ordered warships from them, but it didn't.

They're expensive for what they are and don't have a role within USN fleet architecture during peacetime and LIC (despite being optimized for peacetime and LIC USCG operations).

They're optimized for Pacific war. Mainly by never going anywhere near the Pacific. That's the important job they do. If the U.S. doesn't build FF(X) it sends a strong signal that it has no intention to fight China or retain its global empire, because the entire point of the ship is to free up Burkes in non-Pacific theaters to go die to the PLA, while the FF(X) shoots Tomahawks at the Houthis or Boko Haram or Al Shabbab or ISIS or the cartels or whatever.

Building them is one thing but utilizing them is something else

They'll be fine in their intended role.

 

[Mallard]

America has basically zero shipbuilding capacity since the 90s. It can't make mobilization ships. China probably has a few designs sitting on shelves. If America weren't stupid, it would have leaned harder on Japanese and South Korean industries for this support and ordered warships from them, but it didn't.



They're optimized for Pacific war. Mainly by never going anywhere near the Pacific. That's the important job they do. If the U.S. doesn't build FF(X) it sends a strong signal that it has no intention to fight China or retain its global empire, because the entire point of the ship is to free up Burkes in non-Pacific theaters to go die to the PLA, while the FF(X) shoots Tomahawks at the Houthis or Boko Haram or Al Shabbab or ISIS or the cartels or whatever.



They'll be fine in their intended role.

And how is FFX going to shoot tomahawks at the houthis exactly....

 

[Kat Tsun]

And how is FFX going to shoot tomahawks at the houthis exactly....

It's going to have the Army's Mk 70s abaft the helipad. They're strike length. That gives at least eight Tomahawks, maybe 16, per hull.

 

[Mallard]

It's going to have the Army's Mk 70s abaft the helipad. They're strike length. That gives at least eight Tomahawks, maybe 16, per hull.

And when they respond in kind with drones and anti ship missiles it’s not equipped to deal with? That actual warships struggled to deal with?

 

[Ainen]

And when they respond in kind with drones and anti ship missiles it’s not equipped to deal with? That actual warships struggled to deal with?

It has normal US armament set for a within the horizon engagement.
Given that mk.110 is a purpose tool, better than average even, as average will be a 5" gun without guided projectiles, 50/50 installed CIWS, or, if we're lucky a laser dazzler.

What it can't do is ABM - but ABM is not limited by horizon, rather by footprint, and takes a Burke in any case (FFGX wasn't a dedicated ABM ship either).
It (if alone) would struggle with coordinated ASCM attacks - but luckily, those are limited to few state actors with deep arsenals.
Finally, FFX(and most other US combatants) would struggle to defend agaisnt non-ARH, LO ASCM attack, as it will greatly diminish efficiency of RAM(to a negligible level). Which is a potential problem looking into the future, but there's a reason RAM was built like this: out of US adversaries, only China does mixed seekers(short range YJ-83K, which is generally not an FFX problem), and no one does fully passive infrared ones.

 

[Mallard]

It has normal US armament set for a within the horizon engagement.
Given that mk.110 is a purpose tool, better than average even, as average will be a 5" gun without guided projectiles, 50/50 installed CIWS, or, if we're lucky a laser dazzler.

What it can't do is ABM - but ABM is not limited by horizon, rather by footprint, and takes a Burke in any case (FFGX wasn't a dedicated ABM ship either).
It (if alone) would struggle with coordinated ASCM attacks - but luckily, those are limited to few state actors with deep arsenals.
Finally, FFX(and most other US combatants) would struggle to defend agaisnt non-ARH, LO ASCM attack, as it will greatly diminish efficiency of RAM(to a negligible level). Which is a potential problem looking into the future, but there's a reason RAM was built like this: out of US adversaries, only China does mixed seekers(short range YJ-83K, which is generally not an FFX problem), and no one does fully passive infrared ones.

Are you really trying to suggest a 57mm and RAM launcher are plenty for the threats that were faced in say the recent red sea crisis? Because they arent, why do you think No LCS were deployed.

 

[cccgong]

It's going to have the Army's Mk 70s abaft the helipad. They're strike length. That gives at least eight Tomahawks, maybe 16, per hull.

Most likley 8 at most. Then US launched 135 Tomahawks and 800 munitions total. So you’re going to have at minium 15 FFX in the Red Sea launching tomahawks?

 

[Kat Tsun]

And when they respond in kind with drones

What? Like a quadcopter?

and anti ship missiles

You mean like the Saccades that were defeated by three ESSMs and some chaff that USS Mason faced? I think an FF(X) can beat that.

it’s not equipped to deal with?

Then it dies? This isn't hard. Ships will be sunk and crews will die in war. C'est la guerre.

That actual warships struggled to deal with?

I don't think any US warship has ever "struggled" with a missile except when nobody was paying attention (Stark) lol.

 

[cccgong]

What? Like a quadcopter?



You mean like the Saccades that were defeated by three ESSMs and some chaff that USS Mason faced? I think an FF(X) can beat that.



Then it dies? This isn't hard. Ships will be sunk and crews will die in war. C'est la guerre.



I don't think any US warship has ever "struggled" with a missile except when nobody was paying attention (Stark) lol.

Like shahed type drones.

The Houthis also launched anti ship BMs. The percentage of those will only increase in the future.

This is not war. Losing a 1.2B+ ship in peacetime as you bought something completely ungunned will get you crucified politically.

Chinese armed Houthi equivalents will also have better weapons

 

[Mallard]

What? Like a quadcopter?



You mean like the Saccades that were defeated by three ESSMs and some chaff that USS Mason faced? I think an FF(X) can beat that.



Then it dies? This isn't hard. Ships will be sunk and crews will die in war. C'est la guerre.



I don't think any US warship has ever "struggled" with a missile except when nobody was paying attention (Stark) lol.

So you missed the several occasions that drones and or missiles got into gun range of warships? They were able to destroy them yes but many lesser equipped frigates from Europe were forced to leave the Red sea, and those were still miles ahead of the planned FFX.

Also if the US had lost a ship to the Houthis of all things there would have been absolute outrage and complete embarrassement.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Like shahed type drones.

The gun bruh.

The Houthis also launched anti ship BMs. The percentage of those will only increase in the future.

Cool. They couldn't even hit merchant ships.

This is not war. Losing a 1.2B+ ship in peacetime as you bought something completely ungunned will get you crucified politically.

FF(X) is built for war.

Chinese armed Houthi equivalents will also have better weapons

The Houthis are already "Chinese armed" wtf are you talking about.

So you missed the several occasions that drones and or missiles got into gun range of warships? They were able to destroy them yes but many lesser equipped frigates from Europe were forced to leave the Red sea, and those were still miles ahead of the planned FFX.

FF(X) has a 3" gun and SeaRAM. That's fine by itself. FFG(X) will have ESSM on top of that.

Also if the US had lost a ship to the Houthis of all things there would have been absolute outrage and complete embarrassement.

Who cares? If the U.S. gets involved in the war that FF(X) is meant for it won't matter what people are "outraged" about if it's anti-war.

 

[Mallard]

The gun bruh.



Cool. They couldn't even hit merchant ships.



FF(X) is built for war.



The Houthis are already "Chinese armed" wtf are you talking about.



FF(X) has a 3" gun and SeaRAM. That's fine by itself. FFG(X) will have ESSM on top of that.



Who cares? If the U.S. gets involved in the war that FF(X) is meant for it won't matter what people are "outraged" about if it's anti-war.

FFX is built for war..... how exactly.

We werent discussing full scale war though FFX is pretty much useless in that case, we were discussing the red sea and how the FFX wouldnt be able to fill in even for a minor conflict, so what is it good for that cant be done by a regular NSC.

 

[Ainen]

Are you really trying to suggest a 57mm and RAM launcher are plenty for the threats that were faced in say the recent red sea crisis? Because they arent, why do you think No LCS were deployed.

LCS were deployed, they were not primary AD assets in high threat areas under attack. Which is fine; primary AD asset is Burke.
Also, red sea is a high threat area, most of the world isn't exactly a chokepoint with hostile state actor.
Houthis have more ASuW firepower than most countries in the world, even if it's accuracy is subpar.

FFGX as they're being built won't be able to replace Burke in this scenario either(as there's ABM set in this mission).

 

[Mallard]

LCS were deployed, they were not primary AD assets in high threat areas under attack. Which is fine; primary AD asset is Burke.
Also, red sea is a high threat area, most of the world isn't exactly a chokepoint with hostile state actor.
Houthis have more ASuW firepower than most countries in the world, even if it's accuracy is subpar.

We were fighting a state funded terrorist organisation, if that level of threat requires the best ships navies can deploy imagine an actual state conflict.

 

[Ainen]

We were fighting a state funded terrorist organisation, if that level of threat requires the best ships navies can deploy imagine an actual state conflict.

I thought dropping masks is now in fashion. Houthis are nation state in all but recognition, and they have more asuw firepower than most nations do.
Most of the world isn't quite there. And either way, the problem is exactly the setup.
Right now, US has to deploy multiple burkes, as that's the only vessel available. 3-4 Burkes is effectively a full CSG screen off eastpac theater, in a scenario where US is desperately short of those (74 destroyers per 20 active carriers and LHAs, <1:4).
If it can be changed to, for instance, 1 Burke 3-4 FFX(close escort only) - this is a saving.
If Burkes in less contested areas across the world(which is pretty much everywhere other than gulf and its surroundings) can be equally replaced with simpler USN ships - that's a saving of a ~dozen more. Then add in aegis ashore, replacing Burke deployments. Added together, that saves you maybe a quarter of your entire Burke force for forward deployment.

Problem is US force is incredibly effective, but it's also incredibly inefficient. Against wastly superior shipbuilding power(which also just happens to build a far more efficient force mix...and it won't take too long now for it to become effective), this is a suicide.

 

[Mallard]

I thought dropping masks is now in fashion. Houthis are nation state in all but recognition, and they have more asuw firepower than most nations do.
Most of the world isn't quite there. And either way, the problem is exactly the setup.
Right now, US has to deploy multiple burkes, as that's the only vessel available. 3-4 Burkes is effectively a full CSG screen off eastpac theater, in a scenario where US is desperately short of those (74 destroyers per 20 active carriers and LHAs, <1:4).
If it can be changed to, for instance, 1 Burke 3-4 FFX(close escort only) - this is a saving.
If Burkes in less contested areas across the world(which is pretty much everywhere other than gulf) can be equally replaced with simpler USN ships - that's a saving of a ~dozen more. That is a lot.

Still dont see what it could contribute to a red sea situation, but sure, several locations where a burke could be freed up.

And what about the lack of US combatants in general. The Chinese are only building more while the Burke fleet will rapidly shrink going into the 2030s.

 

[Ainen]

Still dont see what it could contribute to a red sea situation, but sure, several locations where a burke could be freed up.

And what about the lack of US combatants in general. The Chinese are only building more while the Burke fleet will rapidly shrink going into the 2030s.

Well, the best way IMHO is urgent stratification and specialization of US fleet, to free up battle force ships from any empire presense duties.
It's honestly a shame how utterly FFGX has failed, b/c just 6-8 of them, together with FFX and NSCs, probably would've allowed to replace Burkes in most parts of the world. But with 2 it just won't work.

 

[DJK]

FFGX as they're being built won't be able to replace Burke in this scenario either(as there's ABM set in this mission).

You need missiles with enough range to engage threats you see on radar. For USN, minimum AD range requires useful numbers of ESSM. If you cant install those 12 Mk-56 then its basically no more than a gunboat.

It has normal US armament set for a within the horizon engagement.
Given that mk.110 is a purpose tool, better than average even, as average will be a 5" gun without guided projectiles, 50/50 installed CIWS, or, if we're lucky a laser dazzler.

5" unguided is not an average AD solution anymore. At most a useful filter so that your close-in guns and RAM launchers aren't saturated with low value threats. So 57mm unguided 3P might be the new average.

It (if alone) would struggle with coordinated ASCM attacks - but luckily, those are limited to few state actors with deep arsenals.
Finally, FFX(and most other US combatants) would struggle to defend agaisnt non-ARH, LO ASCM attack, as it will greatly diminish efficiency of RAM(to a negligible level). Which is a potential problem looking into the future, but there's a reason RAM was built like this: out of US adversaries, only China does mixed seekers(short range YJ-83K, which is generally not an FFX problem), and no one does fully passive infrared

Is why you shouldn't rely on a single weapon system to do everything. If you think you are safe, your enemy would like you to keep thinking that while they find a way to break you. Or send the problem threat to someone who can fire it at your problem defences.

FF(X) has a 3" gun and SeaRAM. That's fine by itself. FFG(X) will have ESSM on top of that.

3" guns? They dug up some old guns from somewhere? Mk-110 is 57mm, its not even an imperial measurement. FFG(X) was cancelled, and nobody is sure the navy will successfully get its preferred VLS on this hull.

Who cares? If the U.S. gets involved in the war that FF(X) is meant for it won't matter what people are "outraged" about if it's anti-war.

But your allies might be disillusioned enough to opt out.

 

[Ainen]

You need missiles with enough range to engage threats you see on radar. For USN, minimum AD range requires useful numbers of ESSM. If you cant install those 12 Mk-56 then its basically no more than a gunboat.

Do you see that far on your own?
Radar horizon for, say, Burke main radar(14m above waterline) is glorious 15km (~8nmi).
Yes, even sea skimmer doesn't fly at exactly zero - but there's also RCS and S band limitations at low altitude(suboptimal wavelength for the task). Modern sea skimmer is often a 5-6 nmi threat. That's half way to big VLS missile dead zone.
Mk.29 btw will do better, but everyone wants VLS specifically. Well, VLS, unless it's some IRIS, is a rather inefficient close in engagement profile and seeker conditions. It isn't something terrible, but it's a task requiring frequent enough practical shots for crew. For RAM it's much more straighforward.

Is why you shouldn't rely on a single weapon system to do everything. If you think you are safe, your enemy would like you to keep thinking that while they find a way to break you. Or send the problem threat to someone who can fire it at your problem defences.

Absolutely same logic is applicable to Burke, which is ultimately just a larger SAM system.
Your biggest protection is normally flag and just enough defense to avoid deniable kill.

 

[Kat Tsun]

FFX is built for war..... how exactly.

How can this ship, with a mere depth charge and deck gun, win a world war? It's not even a battleship!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower-class_corvette

We werent discussing full scale war

Then you aren't discussing FF(X).

though FFX is pretty much useless in that case,

On the contrary, it's extremely useful.

we were discussing the red sea and how the FFX wouldnt be able to fill in even for a minor conflict,

I think "minor conflict" and "Red Sea" are synonymous. The region hasn't ever seen peace. It likely never will.

so what is it good for that cant be done by a regular NSC.

Tomahawk strikes and shooting down cruise missiles that bothered Mason. That's all it needs to do. That's what CENTCOM craves.

3" guns? They dug up some old guns from somewhere? Mk-110 is 57mm, its not even an imperial measurement. FFG(X) was cancelled, and nobody is sure the navy will successfully get its preferred VLS on this hull.

My bad I thought they were using the Perries' spare guns they gave the cutters for the FF(X). 57mm is better because it has modern ammo.

But your allies might be disillusioned enough to opt out.

Then, they'll have to manage Russia on their own, I guess? Oh well. It just means the U.S. can put more forces into INDOPACCOM's fight and pull everything else from Europe if NATO goes kaput. America doesn't want to shed its empire, but if it has to, it will help it in the China fight.

 

[Ainen]

I think "minor conflict" and "Red Sea" are synonymous. The region hasn't ever seen peace. It likely never will.

Houthi has weeell above average missile availability (direct supply from a big missile manufacturer, local production, rare geography around one of worlds' most important chokepoints; unique "fremen" level resiliance to coercion). It is frankly way above normal for minor.

 

[Mallard]

How can this ship, with a mere depth charge and deck gun, win a world war? It's not even a battleship!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower-class_corvette


Then you aren't discussing FF(X).



On the contrary, it's extremely useful.



I think "minor conflict" and "Red Sea" are synonymous. The region hasn't ever seen peace. It likely never will.



Tomahawk strikes and shooting down cruise missiles that bothered Mason. That's all it needs to do. That's what CENTCOM craves.



My bad I thought they were using the Perries' spare guns they gave the cutters for the FF(X). 57mm is better because it has modern ammo.



Then, they'll have to manage Russia on their own, I guess? Oh well. It just means the U.S. can put more forces into INDOPACCOM's fight and pull everything else from Europe if NATO goes kaput. America doesn't want to shed its empire, but if it has to, it will help it in the China fight.

Americas actively trying to shed its empire but well leave that aside.....

See heres the difference with the flower class, you could actually make the modern equivalent of a flower with towed arrays, asroc and minor air defense as is on FFX, because conducting mid atlantic or specific convoy escort its unlikely to encounter any high end ashm weaponry. However thats not what its doing, you want to stick it in a contested littoral environment and expect its gun an 21 RAM missiles to keep it alive somehow.

Most dont even believe FFX is a warship and im inclined to agree so yeh, war and FFX dont go together.

Again, if the Red sea is the low end of a conflict at sea, what the hell is FFX going to do against China, because it will have to fight China seeing as theyre building proper frigates and destroyer and lots of them.

Tomohawk strikes? Like has been pointed out using these instead of a burke will mean less tomahawks available overall and these certainly wont be providing a bulwark of defense to any Burkes.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Again, if the Red sea is the low end of a conflict at sea, what the hell is FFX going to do against China, because it will have to fight China

If the equivalent of a Gowind has to fight China, then the United States Navy has been destroyed, and the U.S. has probably used strategic weapons. FF(X), quite literally, is meant to do nothing more than free up hulls from the all important mission of colonial policing to fight the PLAN. It reduces the virtual attrition Burkes. Nothing more.

If the U.S. could leave NATO and the Middle East behind, and focus entirely on the Pacific, it probably wouldn't need FF(X). Alas.

 

[johnpjones1775]

And when they respond in kind with drones and anti ship missiles it’s not equipped to deal with? That actual warships struggled to deal with?

Drones and like 40 year old missile designs?

RAM, MK110, and mk38 mod4, that’s how.

 

[johnpjones1775]

So you missed the several occasions that drones and or missiles got into gun range of warships? They were able to destroy them yes but many lesser equipped frigates from Europe were forced to leave the Red sea, and those were still miles ahead of the planned FFX.

Also if the US had lost a ship to the Houthis of all things there would have been absolute outrage and complete embarrassement.

The only European ships forced out of the area were due to equipment casualties not because they didn’t have the armament to do the job.

 

[johnpjones1775]

We were fighting a state funded terrorist organisation, if that level of threat requires the best ships navies can deploy imagine an actual state conflict.

Did it require that, or is that all that anyone had available?

 

[Mallard]

Did it require that, or is that all that anyone had available?

It absolutely required that, certainly in europes case destroyers were the only ones with the magazine depth and were usually the best updated it terms of sensors and software to deal with the volume of attacks. Where exactly is the depth of defences on FFX

 

[Mallard]

The only European ships forced out of the area were due to equipment casualties not because they didn’t have the armament to do the job.

On several occasions it has been mentioned that the missile depth of the Fremm frigates was insufficient for the conflict, often they were forced to use guns to compensate.

No captain wants to use guns as their main line of defense when missiles are far more likely to guarantee a kill

 

[Mallard]

Drones and like 40 year old missile designs?

RAM, MK110, and mk38 mod4, that’s how.

You’re really leaning on those guns huh, are we back in WW2? No ones going to be comfortable with relying on guns as the main line of defense for this ship, even Burkes had close calls with drones and missiles and that was with extensive missile defenses.

 

[johnpjones1775]

You’re really leaning on those guns huh, are we back in WW2? No ones going to be comfortable with relying on guns as the main line of defense for this ship, even Burkes had close calls with drones and missiles and that was with extensive missile defenses.

You’re really leaning on those guns huh, are we back in WW2? No ones going to be comfortable with relying on guns as the main line of defense for this ship, even Burkes had close calls with drones and missiles and that was with extensive missile defenses.

Until you provide an economically feasible way to defend against a swarm of cheap munitions with missiles yes we will have to rely on guns.

What are these ‘close calls’? The USN specifically chose to save missiles/money by selectively choosing which weapon to engage which threat with.

Some missiles weren’t engaged at all because it was deemed the chance of the missile hitting anything was extremely low.

Would you use an M2 or mk19 to kill a technical with an LMG in the bed or would you use a javelin? You also must consider the potential IFV, and tank threat, and limited numbers of javelins and no resupply once you run out?

 

[Mallard]

Until you provide an economically feasible way to defend against a swarm of cheap munitions with missiles yes we will have to rely on guns.

What are these ‘close calls’? The USN specifically chose to save missiles/money by selectively choosing which weapon to engage which threat with.

Some missiles weren’t engaged at all because it was deemed the chance of the missile hitting anything was extremely low.

There’s plenty of systems being worked on for cheaper drone defense, none being installed on FFX apparently.

There almost certainly were cases of this, Eisenhower CSG had to pull evasive manuvers that send an F18 overboard.

But also as specced the FFX won’t be able to pick and choose what it engages because it’s only defenses are a PDMS and gun, it cannot choose to engage a more dangerous threat sooner than that

 

[johnpjones1775]

There’s plenty of systems being worked on for cheaper drone defense, none being installed on FFX apparently.

There almost certainly were cases of this, Eisenhower CSG had to pull evasive manuvers that send an F18 overboard.

But also as specced the FFX won’t be able to pick and choose what it engages because it’s only defenses are a PDMS and gun, it cannot choose to engage a more dangerous threat sooner than that

They didn’t have to, that’s standard procedure, the missile never actually got any where near the carrier or its escorts.

There are no projects aside from lasers that makes intercepting cheap drones and older missiles financially feasible over guns. Are there cheaper options being developed? Yes, but let’s look at hellfire as an example, $100-200k per missile. You’re spending 10x-20x the amount to stop the threat as the enemy is spending to be a threat.

A guided mk110 round is at worst a 1:1 cost ratio.

And as we’ve discussed, the new frigate will have mk70 for some missiles, and the next batch will have VLS built into it, so ESSM at the minimum will be available, and then the first batch will go into dry dock and be upgraded with VLS as well.

That is the current plan.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There are no projects aside from lasers that makes intercepting cheap drones and older missiles financially feasible over guns. Are there cheaper options being developed? Yes, but let’s look at hellfire as an example, $100-200k per missile. You’re spending 10x-20x the amount to stop the threat as the enemy is spending to be a threat.

A guided mk110 round is at worst a 1:1 cost ratio.

The cost comparison is not the cost of the weapon used to stop the incoming, but the cost of the defended target.

 

[DWG]

It absolutely required that, certainly in europes case destroyers were the only ones with the magazine depth

Of EU vessels deployed on Operation Aspides, the Italian Orrizonte class DDGs have 48 A50 cells, while the French Horizon class FFGs also have 48 A50s, of course these are the same class, so what's in a name? The Greek Hydra class frigates have 16 Mk 48 cells for ESSM, while the Belgian Karel Doormans have 16 VLS for RIM-7. The Italian and French FREMMs have 16 A50 cells, but the French Aquitaines/FREDAs have 32 A50s. The Dutch De Zeven Provincien class FFGs have 40 Mk 41 cells, for 32x SM2 and 32x ESSM, while the German Sachsen class FFGs have 32 Mk 41 cells for 24 SM2 and 32 ESSM (ETA: plus 2x Mk 144 for 42 RAM).

So it's nothing to do with the supposed class of vessel, it's whether they're a dedicated AAW combatant, or a GP or ASW type, and to some degree whether they have the quad-packable Mk 41.

 

[Mallard]

Of EU vessels deployed on Operation Aspides, the Italian Orrizonte class DDGs have 48 A50 cells, while the French Horizon class FFGs also have 48 A50s, of course these are the same class, so what's in a name? The Greek Hydra class frigates have 16 Mk 48 cells for ESSM, while the Belgian Karel Doormans have 16 VLS for RIM-7. The Italian and French FREMMs have 16 A50 cells, but the French Aquitaines/FREDAs have 32 A50s. The Dutch De Zeven Provincien class FFGs have 40 Mk 41 cells, for 32x SM2 and 32x ESSM, while the German Sachsen class FFGs have 32 Mk 41 cells for 24 SM2 and 32 ESSM.

So it's nothing to do with the supposed class of vessel, it's whether they're a dedicated AAW combatant, or a GP or ASW type, and to some degree whether they have the quad-packable Mk 41.

Destroyer, air warfare frigate, same difference, point is that even much more up to date and capable frigates like Fremm ran into issues with magazines depth