TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
Chris Kyle?
More of a Destroyer name IMO

For a long time, they were sort of interchangeable (see the FFG-7 class names). But I like the trend toward frigate names being based on historical ships of note, especially sailing frigates or sloops of war (and hopefully their steam successors).

I also realized that the three FFGs names so far all begin with C. Possibly a deliberate theme? If so, there aren't many C frigate names left. Cumberland and maybe Cyane and Concord.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
763
Reaction score
1,313
Chris Kyle?
More of a Destroyer name IMO

For a long time, they were sort of interchangeable (see the FFG-7 class names). But I like the trend toward frigate names being based on historical ships of note, especially sailing frigates or sloops of war (and hopefully their steam successors).

I also realized that the three FFGs names so far all begin with C. Possibly a deliberate theme? If so, there aren't many C frigate names left. Cumberland and maybe Cyane and Concord.
Doubtful that's what they're doing. These are all names that haven't seen use in a long time so far. The most recent name announced so far is Constellation and the last ship to use the name decommissioned almost 20 years ago. Congress hasn't been used in over 100 years. And then it was only used because that the fishing boat's name when she was commissioned as a patrol boat in WWI. Before that it hadn't seen use since 1876. Same for Chesapeake. It last saw commissioned use for a few months in 1919. Before that was the 1799 frigate. They probably just wanted to get those names back into circulation first.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
Yeah, the Cs are probably just a coincidence.

Edit: But if they do name the fourth ship Cumberland, I'm calling it a theme.
 
Last edited:

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
85
Reaction score
64
Timing is probably better for Greece, if nothing else. MMSC isn't a great fit for their needs and Belharra is probably available sooner than FFG(X). getting a couple of LaFayettes is definitely useful.

Do we know if the drawing with armament and so forth in the article is specific to the Greek examples?
:eek:fftop: why?
Can't say I know much about Eastern Mediterranean, but MMSC seems exactly to be the perfect fit for the theatre.
(let's assume it works)
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
Timing is probably better for Greece, if nothing else. MMSC isn't a great fit for their needs and Belharra is probably available sooner than FFG(X). getting a couple of LaFayettes is definitely useful.

Do we know if the drawing with armament and so forth in the article is specific to the Greek examples?
:eek:fftop: why?
Can't say I know much about Eastern Mediterranean, but MMSC seems exactly to be the perfect fit for the theatre.
(let's assume it works)

Short on missiles (half as many VLS as the other offerings). Less capable radar and other sensors. And if its LCS cousins are any guide, a really fragile propulsion system.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
Illustrates well the effort to keep weight low in the ship and prevent overloading.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
Will use the same engine configuration (i.e. CODELAGOG) of italian ones ?

Yes, with upgraded diesels and fixed rather than controllable-pitch props.

The usual term for this configuration is CODLAG (Combined Diesel-eLectric And Gas turbine).
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121
Will use the same engine configuration (i.e. CODELAGOG) of italian ones ?

Yes, with upgraded diesels and fixed rather than controllable-pitch props.

The usual term for this configuration is CODLAG (Combined Diesel-eLectric And Gas turbine).
It will fit four 3MW MTU 20V 4000 M53B replacing the Isotta Fraschini 2.8MW DGs and the shaft mounted electric motors by DRS replacing the FREMMs two Jeumont 2.5 MW motors. Have seen no details of the DRS motors, assuming more powerful as Constellation 500t heavier at 7,400t and its quoted it can cruise at 16/17 knots on its motors whereas FREMM 15 knots.
 

Marcellogo

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
11
Reaction score
11
Will use the same engine configuration (i.e. CODELAGOG) of italian ones ?

Yes, with upgraded diesels and fixed rather than controllable-pitch props.

The usual term for this configuration is CODLAG (Combined Diesel-eLectric And Gas turbine).
No, in our navy there is also the option to run on gas turbine only: as the single turbine is fuel efficient only on full power only we can disconnect the diesel electric so achieving a sort of fast cruise mode hence it mans CODLAG + Or Gas only.
We added E because is obviously easier to pronounce it like so than CODLA...epps!
 

Marcellogo

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
11
Reaction score
11
For Cordy

FOUR MTU 3MW engines instead of a single L2500G4+!!!!!

Man, are you sure that is a CODLAG at all and not just a COGAG?
What is sure is that you has made confusion between Horizon and FrEMM as it is the former one that sport two TAGS, Bergamini has only one .
Advantage of CODeLAGOG is precisely there , you spare a TAG thank to electrical boost, Aquitaine having only a Codog can reach just 27 knots instead of 31.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121
For Cordy

FOUR MTU 3MW engines instead of a single L2500G4+!!!!!

Man, are you sure that is a CODLAG at all and not just a COGAG?
What is sure is that you has made confusion between Horizon and FrEMM as it is the former one that sport two TAGS, Bergamini has only one .
Advantage of CODeLAGOG is precisely there , you spare a TAG thank to electrical boost, Aquitaine having only a Codog can reach just 27 knots instead of 31.
Confusion reigns, my post below said the four 3MW MTU 20V 4000 M53B replacing the Isotta Fraschini 2.8MW DGs, made no mention of the single L2500G4+ GT which hasn't been changed.

It will fit four 3MW MTU 20V 4000 M53B replacing the Isotta Fraschini 2.8MW DGs and the shaft mounted electric motors by DRS replacing the FREMMs two Jeumont 2.5 MW motors. Have seen no details of the DRS motors, assuming more powerful as Constellation 500t heavier at 7,400t and its quoted it can cruise at 16/17 knots on its motors whereas FREMM 15 knots

Another change from the FREMM propulsion system with Constellation is that its fitted with FPPs instead of CPPs, FPPs quieter and less expensive than CPP's but FFPs blade angle cannot be changed and optimized for max speed as CPPs, so maybe Constellation might be one two knots slower than FREMM, but that might be compensated by Constellation having an optimized extended longer and finer bow as no bow mounted HMS fitted as on FREMM reducing the hydrodynamic drag (Constellation fitted with a stern mounted VDS in place of HMS)

Pic below shows the amount of adjustment of the FREMMs CPPs, the starboard propeller in the trailing mode position.
 

Attachments

  • FREMM_CPP.jpg
    FREMM_CPP.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 22
Last edited:

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
1,716
Is it just me, or do all these changes make the insistence on basing FFG(X) on an existing design look ridiculous? Changing the weapons system and superstructure was to be expected, but they've now changed the hullform and the propulsion system as well, which are the things where using an existing design in its original form would have lowered design risk.
 

Marcellogo

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
11
Reaction score
11
Well, if such changes only interest the type of diesels used to power the electrical generators of the CODLAG system, the change is minor at least.
As an example the French version only use a CODLOG system instead, that's is a more significative difference.
Same italian ships have a different length between the first and second batch production and naturally both italian than french ones are produced in two different version, ASW and GP for us, ASW (and this is different from our one) and AAW.
You have to consider that the "common" project and the "european" qualification was there in name only: they are the product (much more than Horizon) of two different defence industries, with different products and two completely different operative doctrine and strategical overlook.
So as an example, French put vertical launchers for their Scalp Naval cruise missiles in all their own lot, something we have absolutely no interest in.
Italian ones are instead top tier ones, having a main radar even superior to the one of Horizon coupled with launcher of zone defence missiles, ASW use a long range anti-submarine missiles and the GP sport a fantastic Main Gun complex with 440 rounds in a fully automatized magazine.
And obviously there is always the question of the MMI proprietary construction standard that made our own ships a world apart in term of security, damage absorption and capacity of keeping the ship operative even when damaged.
THIS is something no one can actually get without investing an abnormal amount of money and time to develop something similar (as in itself is the result of decades of continual refinements) so better take it as it is (eventually adding some kevlar as Americans have done).
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121
History - The US Navy were rightly ridiculed and lost immense credibility by ignoring their own survivability standards with their decision to allow both classes of LCS ships to be designed and built as one hit and abandon ship.

In reaction to the above criticism the Navy has taken for the LCS fiasco for the FFG(X)/Constellation the Navy/NAVSEA specified compliance with the equivalent to the old OPNAV Instruction 9070.1 Level II survivability standard for Frigates and Amphibs (my understanding during LCS storm the Navy abandoned 9070.1 as it was too embarrassing as LCS did not even meet the lowest Level III standard for Support Ships, All Other Auxiliary Ships/Craft etc).

To make the FREMM fully compliant to meet the Navy 9070.1 survivability standard Fincantieri had to modify the design to toughen up the ship by adding ~300t of steel to the hull for the Constellation which was the driver for the increase dimensions and the increase in full load displacement of 500t over the FREMM to the 7,400t of the Constellation and that was the design Fincantieri bid with and won the contract.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
1,716
Well, if such changes only interest the type of diesels used to power the electrical generators of the CODLAG system, the change is minor at least.
There's also the change of props from CPP to fixed pitch, plus lengthening changing the hull form and therefore the hydrodynamics. LCS is a pretty good example of how engine reliability issues can seriously compromise a vessel, and the FFG(X) requirement was meant to take them away from the weaknesses of LCS.
 

Marcellogo

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
11
Reaction score
11
Yes, they have chosen our own version and not the French one because of the way greater construction standard.
Just as an example italian military ships have (from the eighties) a distributed software system, so also an hit on the COC or command desk didn't cripple all of the weapons or radar at once, only affecting data fusion.
Obviously this mean a greater initial cost but it repay itself with time as it turned out they have ,on average, a longer operative life.
Obviously Constellation would be very different from both Bergamini than Aquitaine because of the completely diverse weapons system they respectively use.

Let's just note how the main gun of the former are actually of smaller calibre than the italian standard CIWS system.
Italian equivalent of the LCS would instead be the PPA and the future EPG.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
353
Reaction score
708
I suspect because no one actually bid the French variant
Indeed, each FFG(X) bidder needed to have a shipyard partner. All the yards had already lined up their preferred designs, leaving no room for the Dutch, Danes and French (or anyone else).

- Bath Ironworks -> Navantia F100
- Austal -> LCS-2
- Marinette Marine -> Lockeed Martin’s LCS-1 and Fincantieri’s FREMM It)
- Huntington Ingalls-> National Security Cutter?
- VT Halter -> TKMS Meko A200 (long shot)

There was some speculation that HII might have offered a European design instead of a derivative of its own NSC, but they were very tight lipped on the subject so no one really knows.
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
677
Reaction score
1,383
“Supporters of requiring each FFG-62 to be equipped with a larger number of VLS tubes, such as 48, might argue that FFG-62s are to be roughly three-quarters as large, and at least half as expensive to procure, as DDG-51s, and might therefore be more appropriately equipped with at least 48 VLS tubes, which is one-half the number on recent DDG-51s. They might also argue that in a context of renewed great power competition with potential adversaries such as China, which is steadily improving its naval capabilities, it might be prudent to equip each FFG-62 with 48 rather than 32 VLS tubes each, and that doing so might only marginally increase FFG-62 unit procurement costs. They might also argue that equipping each FFG-62 with 48 rather than 32 VLS tubes will permit the Navy to more fully offset a substantial reduction in VLS tubes that the Navy’s surface fleet is projected to experience when the Navy’s 22 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruisers, which are each equipped with 122 VLS tubes, are retired, and provide a hedge against the possibility that Navy plans to field VLS tubes on Large Unmanned Surface Vehicles (LUSVs) will be slowed or curtailed for technical or other reasons.

“Supporters of having each FFG-62 be equipped with 32 VLS tubes might argue that the analyses indicating a need for 32 VLS tubes already took improving adversary capabilities (as well as other U.S. Navy capabilities) into account. They might also argue that FFG-62s, in addition to having 32 VLS tubes, will also to have separate, deck-mounted box launchers for launching 16 anti-ship cruise missiles, as well as a separate, 21-cell Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) AAW missile launcher; that the Navy is moving ahead with its plan to deploy additional VLS tubes on LUSVs, which are to act as adjunct weapon magazines for the Navy’s manned surface combatants; and that increasing the number of VLS tubes on each FFG-62 from 32 to 48 would increase (even if only marginally) the procurement cost of a ship that is intended to be an affordable supplement to the Navy’s cruisers and destroyers.

 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
3,250
Just build the damn things.
I'm sure the VLS number obsession is one reason why the USN seems incapable of deciding what it wants and ends up building nothing new.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
Just build the damn things.
I'm sure the VLS number obsession is one reason why the USN seems incapable of deciding what it wants and ends up building nothing new.

They are building them right now. No one inside the Navy decision-making process seems to be having any issues with the number of VLS cells. This is entirely an issue among amateurs (which includes a surprising number of Congressional member staff).
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121
The Navy saying the primary mission of Constellation is ASW, enabled by its quiet HED propulsion system with its silenced DGs, shaft mounted electric motors and FPPs, question is what's the cut off point where you stop gold plating by adding more and more capabilities and cost eg 16vs 32 vs 48 VLS cells.

You could make an argument that for an ASW frigate the Constellation is over specified as it is coming in at $1 billion and 7,400 tons which is only 1000 tons lighter than than a Burke Flt I, if remember correctly original requirement was for 16 VLS cells, does the Navy not have enough VLS cells on the Ticos and Burkes?

The Navy settled on the Constellation spec and needs to build them in numbers, original plan was for one in the first year and then two per year, actuality only one funded per year for the first two tears and again in FY2022 funding only one requested for the third ship.
 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
73
The second batch can always have more if the requirements change. The USN seems happy with 32.

Exactly. Build the first batch without changing requirements or adding costs.

Prove the design is solid and projected costs are relatively accurate.

Bring another shipyard online to produce the ships in parallel.

Design a Flight II version incorporating additional VLS cells and or other enhancements.

There is a certain discipline that's required here and I hope the Navy can maintain it's focus.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
763
Reaction score
1,313
The Navy saying the primary mission of Constellation is ASW, enabled by its quiet HED propulsion system with its silenced DGs, shaft mounted electric motors and FPPs, question is what's the cut off point where you stop gold plating by adding more and more capabilities and cost eg 16vs 32 vs 48 VLS cells.

You could make an argument that for an ASW frigate the Constellation is over specified as it is coming in at $1 billion and 7,400 tons which is only 1000 tons lighter than than a Burke Flt I, if remember correctly original requirement was for 16 VLS cells, does the Navy not have enough VLS cells on the Ticos and Burkes?

The Navy settled on the Constellation spec and needs to build them in numbers, original plan was for one in the first year and then two per year, actuality only one funded per year for the first two tears and again in FY2022 funding only one requested for the third ship.
My guess is that they figured 32 cells gives the ship a legitimate anti-air capability, which would let them perform convoy escort and independent operations without needing a Burke or a Tico riding shotgun.

Edit: As for the buy rate, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that money is having to go to the Columbia-class boomers instead of a frigate.
 
Last edited:

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
73
FFGX is clearly designed and outfitted as a general purpose frigate.

It has credible capabilities in multiple mission areas.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
Just build the damn things.
I'm sure the VLS number obsession is one reason why the USN seems incapable of deciding what it wants and ends up building nothing new.

They are building them right now. No one inside the Navy decision-making process seems to be having any issues with the number of VLS cells. This is entirely an issue among amateurs (which includes a surprising number of Congressional member staff).
If you met them you wouldn't be so surprised.
 

Similar threads

Top