jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
@jsport The Greek competition has nothing to do with FFG(X).
Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Navy paired to offer one potential solution, in which the defense contractor would upgrade the MEKOs and sell a multi-mission frigate based off its Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship, dubbed the Hellenic Future Frigate,

so beleive relevant
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
871
Reaction score
1,624
@jsport The Greek competition has nothing to do with FFG(X).
Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Navy paired to offer one potential solution, in which the defense contractor would upgrade the MEKOs and sell a multi-mission frigate based off its Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship, dubbed the Hellenic Future Frigate,

so beleive relevant
Not in the least. FFG(X) is the Constellation class frigate. The US is not pursuing the Freedom class as anything more than an LCS and it is not a part of the FFG(X) program
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
@jsport The Greek competition has nothing to do with FFG(X).
Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Navy paired to offer one potential solution, in which the defense contractor would upgrade the MEKOs and sell a multi-mission frigate based off its Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship, dubbed the Hellenic Future Frigate,

so beleive relevant
Not in the least. FFG(X) is the Constellation class frigate. The US is not pursuing the Freedom class as anything more than an LCS and it is not a part of the FFG(X) program
Someone needs to change the thread to Constellation class (multi-mission guided-missile frigates) as it is no longer (x) program. As the MEKO was FFG (X) contender and beleived there was discussion of a new frigate competetion after twelve Constellations as some in the USN seemed not happy w/ the Constellation decision.
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Nice review. Not much new there, I think, but it is interesting that they seem to have stabilized on 16 NSM, a small change from 8-16 in the early documents. Obviously, how many actual canisters will be embarked may vary but it feels like they will at least have racks for all 16.

Can anyone help me figure out whether SLQ-32(V)6, aka SEWIP Lite, has an electronic attack capability or is strictly an ESM system? Published sources are vague.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915

Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement​

Program (SEWIP) Lite​


SEWIP Lite

AN/SLQ-32C(V)6 or “SEWIP Lite” is part of the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program product line. The system provides early detection, analysis, threat warning, and protection from anti-ship missiles. SEWIP Lite is capable of both littoral and open ocean electronic surveillance. This system will be installed on fast frigate class and U.S. Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutters.

contractor may not disclose atk capability
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Nice review. Not much new there, I think, but it is interesting that they seem to have stabilized on 16 NSM, a small change from 8-16 in the early documents. Obviously, how many actual canisters will be embarked may vary but it feels like they will at least have racks for all 16.

Can anyone help me figure out whether SLQ-32(V)6, aka SEWIP Lite, has an electronic attack capability or is strictly an ESM system? Published sources are vague.

Answering my own question, I figured out that SLQ-32(V)6 does not include electronic attack. So, Nulka is it, for the moment.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
IS SQL-32(V)6 the version on FFGX? I would have thought there would at least be an active component.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
IS SQL-32(V)6 the version on FFGX? I would have thought there would at least be an active component.

According to the slides posted on Jan 12, yes.

I'm a bit surprised, too. But the USN has a history of cheaping out on EA for frigates and then backfitting it later (Sidekick, for example). NG is definitely pushing a version of SEWIP III Lite with EA capability for the frigates and the initial 2019 capabilities slide for FFG(X) included SWAP-C for that when it becomes available. It also included an ability to work with the Advanced Off-Board Electronic Warfare (AOEW) pod on helicopters, so it's not like they're ignoring EA entirely.

It may well just be that SEWIP III is too big (it's really huge) and III Lite isn't available until after IOC for the frigates.
 
Last edited:

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,634
Reaction score
811
III Lite isn't a POR yet, unfortunately, the USN's been focused on getting Block II to as many hulls as it can and development of Block III. They're certainly interested, but it's too soon to say when NG might get a contract (or whether a competition may happen). Plus there's Block IV to contend for funding.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
IS SQL-32(V)6 the version on FFGX? I would have thought there would at least be an active component.

According to the slides posted on Jan 12, yes.

I'm a bit surprised, too. But the USN has a history of cheaping out on EA for frigates and then backfiring it later (Sidekick, for example). NG is definitely pushing a version of SEWIP III Lite with EA capability for the frigates and the initial 2019 capabilities slide for FFG(X) included SWAP-C for that when it becomes available. It also included an ability to work with the Advanced Off-Board Electronic Warfare (AOEW) pod on helicopters, so it's not like they're ignoring EA entirely.

It may well just be that SEWIP III is too big (it's really huge) and III Lite isn't available until after IOC for the frigates.
III Lite isn't a POR yet, unfortunately, the USN's been focused on getting Block II to as many hulls as it can and development of Block III. They're certainly interested, but it's too soon to say when NG might get a contract (or whether a competition may happen). Plus there's Block IV to contend for funding.
Then again cant the New SPY6 do EWAR including Electronic Attack stuff as well?

If so I can see a dedicated EA system being dropped as an redundant expanse on a "cheap" ship.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
It’s possible it can jam in the x band; I’ve not heard of such a capability but in principle I think any AESA can be used that way inside its frequency range. It would take software set up to handle that effect though.
 

totallyaverage

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
33
Reaction score
68
The Navy does have several drop-in EW systems such as the SLQ-59 and 61 deployed to 7th and 6th Fleets respectively. While it is not a program goal (largely to limit schedule and cost risk), it is easy to foresee them adding either of those in the late 20s to 30s.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
It’s possible it can jam in the x band; I’ve not heard of such a capability but in principle I think any AESA can be used that way inside its frequency range. It would take software set up to handle that effect though.
Just checked, according to Raytheon site the SPY-6 V3 the version going on the Constellation class is fully capable of electronic warfare so... eyeah.

Why waste money on redundant capabilities at the start when you can add the more specialized gear later?

 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
It’s possible it can jam in the x band; I’ve not heard of such a capability but in principle I think any AESA can be used that way inside its frequency range. It would take software set up to handle that effect though.
Just checked, according to Raytheon site the SPY-6 V3 the version going on the Constellation class is fully capable of electronic warfare so... eyeah.

Why waste money on redundant capabilities at the start when you can add the more specialized gear later?


Read carefully. It says SPY-6(V)3 "defends against ... Jamming/clutter and electronic warfare." I believe this is stating that it can reject or otherwise overcome jamming and other EW techniques directed against it (decoys, chaff, etc.), not necessarily that it is capable of performing EA against other targets.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
It’s possible it can jam in the x band; I’ve not heard of such a capability but in principle I think any AESA can be used that way inside its frequency range. It would take software set up to handle that effect though.
Just checked, according to Raytheon site the SPY-6 V3 the version going on the Constellation class is fully capable of electronic warfare so... eyeah.

Why waste money on redundant capabilities at the start when you can add the more specialized gear later?


Read carefully. It says SPY-6(V)3 "defends against ... Jamming/clutter and electronic warfare." I believe this is stating that it can reject or otherwise overcome jamming and other EW techniques directed against it (decoys, chaff, etc.), not necessarily that it is capable of performing EA against other targets.
Just finish 10 years working on military radars with alot of work with Raytheon.

That just company speak for defending in both defense is best offense and Offense is best defense ways of saying.

IE it can do both the old soft defense of rejection enemy signals and the hard defense of blinding the enemy receivers.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
I really need to read the whole article on this.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/us-navy-looks-again-at-vds-options-for-new-frigate/

So, somewhere along the way, the VDS for FFG-62 become CFE instead of GFE, and Fincanteri doesn't like the Raytheon VDS they were initially directed to use.

So, they seem to be angling for CAPTAS-4, already on the FREMM, instead.

And it's official...

 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
135
Reaction score
106
In context of recent demise of one certain CG, found it curious that US bothered to ensure wide separation of machinery spaces on their FREMM.
When other nations were growing their frigates to old light cruiser dimensions, apparently most other nations didn't bother to not carry over smaller ship survivability practices. Well, kudos to USN for not doing so.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
The USN has always been big on survivability. Looking at the proposed DDG(X) design, it looks like there is a void between the two engine rooms/machinery spaces where the space for deep VLS for CPS was reserved. The casualty of last week was of a design and naval culture that did not consider DC worth while - the school of thought tended to be "if it is hit it is out of action anyway, so why save it?".
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
USN Damage control culture is huge -- a lot of folks are just baffled by how badly it seems to have gone for Moskva.

For comparison, I've been looking at the DC report for USS Stark, which was similarly damaged (two missile impacts, one actual detonation, mass conflagration, etc.). These two photos are telling, I think:

1650459714047.png

1650460218375.png

They are strikingly similar -- in both, the ship is still on fire and is listing heavily (mainly due to firefighting water building up in compartments above the waterline). You can see hoses running (on Stark, it's a dewatering pump in action; on Moskva they may be from a rescue ship just behind her in the photo -- hard to tell). The key difference is that Stark's crew are still on board, and you can see some of them on the flight deck. Some may be casualties waiting to be evac'd, but I believe they are mostly sailors taking a breather before going back in to continue the DC efforts. On Moskva, there is no one visible on board and it's clear that the crew have already abandoned (all the life rafts are gone, while you can still see them in place on Stark's helo hangar)
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
170
Re the SEWIP Blk 2 Lite due to be fitted to Constellaion, same as to be installed as part of the LCS lethality and survivability upgrade, Lockheed had proposed to add the active array taken from the MH-60 Advanced Off-Board Electronic Warfare (AOEW) to give an electronic attack capability which would hopefully be able to jam/soft kill the RF seeker of the anti-ship missiles that resulted in sinking the Moskva.

PS The new, large and expensive, $70+ million SEWIP Blk 3 to fitted to the new build Burkes comes with flat panel electronic attack arrays built in.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
Probably something that will be reserved for the second batch to reduce risk.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Wonder if AOEW-Shipboard (or whatever LM wants to call it) would be competing against SEWIP III Lite for space and budget on the next batch of FFGs? (And presumably a quick backfit to Batch 1)

I get the idea behind AEOW, but I wonder about the logistics of trying to get the helo equipped with the pod, launched, and on station ahead of a missile attack. Seems like unless you have some significant warning, it's not a sure bet that it will be available in time. Hosting an active jammer on the ship sounds like a better bet.
 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
135
Reaction score
106
The USN has always been big on survivability. Looking at the proposed DDG(X) design, it looks like there is a void between the two engine rooms/machinery spaces where the space for deep VLS for CPS was reserved. The casualty of last week was of a design and naval culture that did not consider DC worth while - the school of thought tended to be "if it is hit it is out of action anyway, so why save it?".
List of larger naval powers that went far enough to ensure such a survivability measure(wide physical separation of machinery spaces) itself is kinda telling.

-US(all modern major surface combatants sans LCS)
-Japan (all modern major surface combatants sans Mogami)
-Germany (F125 onwards - full separate combat echelons, much like DD(X) you've mentioned)
-Spain
+Italy is apparently doing the shift right now (PPA, future DDX).

Indian navy carried this arrangement on its destroyers through eras (right from Kashin class), but not for their own large frigates.

PRC, UK, Russia, France and Korea seem to be completely off that train.
 
Last edited:

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
-US(all modern major surface combatants sans LCS)
Even the LCS has a good amount of separation between the Diesel and Turbines. Not as much as some would like cause of space reasons but they are in separate rooms with splinter proofing between them.
 

Similar threads

Top