FFG(X)

I think the RN's been effectively dual-crewing the minesweeping force in the Persian Gulf for a few years, but that might be longer crew cycles than you normally see. Far cheaper to fly out a new crew and fly the old one back than sail one MH back to the UK and another from UK to UAE.
 
TomS said:
And they complain that the FFG-62s have a smaller gun than the "standard FREMM
Click to expand...

Is there such a beast as a 'standard' FREMM? I think it's 3 French variants (ASW with A43, ASW with A50, FREDA), and 4 Italian (GP, ASW, GP-e, FREMM Evo), the Egyptian and Tunisian FR-ASW variants don't have A70 for MdCN and have different electronic fits, not sure it the Egyptian It-GP variants have a significantly different fit, but they probably have the same Egyptian satcomms as their Fr-ASW. US of course has a completely different spec, and Indonesia's likely to end up being different again.
 
Cordy said:
The Navy FY2025 plan is to decommission 19 ships and procure only 6, the battle force fleet gets ever smaller so would have thought Navy would be pushing very hard to increase the number of frigates.

USNI March 11, New Navy Budget Seeks 6 Battle Force Ships, Decommissions 19 Hulls in FY 2025​

Click to expand...
There are issues producing the frigates, including labor shortages, so it would be premature to ramp up the program when it is likely the yard cannot build more anyway. I believe the choice to buy only one Virginia was similarly driven by infrastructure, not financial issues: there is a huge backlog of work on already purchased new submarines and submarines awaiting refit. So spending more money on buying one is not actually going to produce a new submarine right now.
 
Cordy said:
The Navy FY2025 plan is to decommission 19 ships and procure only 6, the battle force fleet gets ever smaller so would have thought Navy would be pushing very hard to increase the number of frigates.

USNI March 11, New Navy Budget Seeks 6 Battle Force Ships, Decommissions 19 Hulls in FY 2025​

Click to expand...
No matter how hard the Navy pushes, if the yards don't have the bodies to produce the man-hours of work the USN won't get another ship.
 
NavalNews write up on the Navy FY2025 budget request

US Navy Requests Lowest Number Of Ships To Date For FY 2025
The US Navy’s latest budget request marks a new low in terms of ship buys for the service...
13 Mar 2024
The US Navy has requested six battle force ships in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget, making the request one of the lowest numbers ever requested by the service in recent years.

Though in dollar terms the shipbuilding budget of $32.4 Bn is at a near recent record high and still the fleet numbers will continue to decline, if the trend continues of ever more costly ships will we see procurement of ships drop to three per year in the not too far future.
 
Cordy said:
NavalNews write up on the Navy FY2025 budget request

US Navy Requests Lowest Number Of Ships To Date For FY 2025
The US Navy’s latest budget request marks a new low in terms of ship buys for the service...
13 Mar 2024
The US Navy has requested six battle force ships in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget, making the request one of the lowest numbers ever requested by the service in recent years.

Though in dollar terms the shipbuilding budget of $32.4 Bn is at a near recent record high and still the fleet numbers will continue to decline, if the trend continues of ever more costly ships will we see procurement of ships drop to three per year in the not too far future.
Click to expand...
Still paying for the Columbia class R&D in that. Budgets will get reasonable again once the Columbia commissions.

Would be even better if R&D wasn't counted as part of the lead ship in class base costs.
 
44/100th of one percent of the federal budget to build warships.

12/100th of one percent of the nation’s economy devoted to building warships.
 
bobbymike said:
44/100th of one percent of the federal budget to build warships.

12/100th of one percent of the nation’s economy devoted to building warships.
Click to expand...
Yes, warships are (expletives deleted) expensive. How much of the US budget was shipbuilding in the 1960s?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, warships are (expletives deleted) expensive. How much of the US budget was shipbuilding in the 1960s?
Click to expand...

Times change and Congress has mandated via the FAR, Fiscal Responsibility Act that the National Defense spend limit of $895 Bn in FY2025. The Navy must ask themselves why are todays ships so much more expensive than the last generation even after allowing for inflation e.g. Nimitz vs Ford and not spend multi tens of $billions on white elephants such as the two LCS classes designed for operating in the littoral seas and yet not a single LCS ship is present in the Red Sea at the moment fighting the Houthi, though there are numerous types of European frigates operating successfully.
 
Cordy said:
Times change and Congress has mandated via the FAR, Fiscal Responsibility Act that the National Defense spend limit of $895 Bn in FY2025. The Navy must ask themselves why are todays ships so much more expensive than the last generation even after allowing for inflation e.g. Nimitz vs Ford and not spend multi tens of $billions on white elephants such as the two LCS classes designed for operating in the littoral seas and yet not a single LCS ship is present in the Red Sea at the moment fighting the Houthi, though there are numerous types of European frigates operating successfully.
Click to expand...
The Answer for the ships being more expensive is from all the gear we put in the things in addition to a half cooked restart of the Burkes outright breaking multiple manufacturers who thought they where out only to be dragged back in.

Like despite its age and issues the Burkes are still a premier vessel more then capable then holding its own against any of its peers. That never came cheap before the blotch restart, let alone after.

While the new FFG basically have the Same electronic fitout as the Burke. IE the most expensive part. While also being outright built different due to different standards that the USN uses over the Euro Ships.

While the Ford is again.

A CLEAN SHEET DESIGN.

First for the carriers in the last oh... nearly 70 years. With all new toys and the like. Which just proved themselves handly in an 8 month deployment with combat missions flown not even two months ago.

While the LCS is again.

NOT A DAMN FRIGATE.

Its at best a Corvette analog that can do minesweeping. With one half of the type, the Freedoms, still down due to their gearing issues and the other Half being yoinked for the Pacific command. And all in all be a bad fit for the Red Sea since they, by design, lack an Area Air Defense system, which are getting the most work out being most spec for independent ops. If there was mines we likely see some scramble that way, but theres not so its basically a useless asset that can be off doing better things.

If you want the Good Stuff? YOu have to pay the price.

And that never been cheap.
 
The USN is paying rather dearly for the LCS and Zumwalt failures. But also as noted above, if you build a ship with a front line combat system and radar, then you are going to pay. The Aegis 2.0 updates are over a billion per ship - they are completely replacing the radar, EW, and combat systems, and those are the most expensive parts.
 
Cordy said:
Times change and Congress has mandated via the FAR, Fiscal Responsibility Act that the National Defense spend limit of $895 Bn in FY2025. The Navy must ask themselves why are todays ships so much more expensive than the last generation even after allowing for inflation e.g. Nimitz vs Ford and not spend multi tens of $billions on white elephants such as the two LCS classes designed for operating in the littoral seas and yet not a single LCS ship is present in the Red Sea at the moment fighting the Houthi, though there are numerous types of European frigates operating successfully.
Click to expand...
Ford has brand new reactors, designed to last 50 years without refueling. Ford has brand new arresting gear and catapults. Ford has a brand new radar system (that is getting replaced by SPY6 because half the radar wasn't funded for development). Ford has new elevators, weapons and IIRC aircraft.

Oh, and the development costs of those are all tacked onto CVN78's purchase price, with CVN79+ not paying a penny into the development funds.

LCS were supposed to have a local air defense system installed. Not funded by Congress. Which yes, basically makes them useless for their Littoral Combat mission unless operating under the cover of a DDG or CG (preferably a CG, since those have flag command spaces), but if you're going to send a DDG or CG there anyways, well, you might as well skip the LCS entirely. Current best use for the trimarans is as gator freighters. They have ro-ro access to the mission bay and can pack at least a company's worth of Marine stuff inside, plus have a flight deck big enough for an H53.

Cancelling the Zumwalts forced the Navy to rebuild their entire supply chain for Burke systems, plus rip out the Zumwalt tooling for Burke tooling (that was likely scrapped when the Zumwalts started construction)

Columbia Class is also eating a crapton of construction dollars. Not least because Congress/Navy (not sure which) deferred production of new SSBNs till the Ohios completely wore out. EB was sending engineers out to the fleet to talk to boomer sailors about how and why some Ohio systems are the way they are because EB hadn't designed a Boomer in 20+ years, there were no engineers left at EB who had designed the Ohios! (Friend of mine got a step designed into the system to get over the Main Induction piping in the superstructure. Engineer holding the tablet asked him why one was needed, he said "because while the induction piping on the Virginia class is 18" in diameter, the induction piping on the Ohios and Columbia classes is 36" in diameter. I'm 6'4" and I can't step over that." She added steps over it on the spot.)

I can keep going.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Ford has brand new reactors, designed to last 50 years without refueling. Ford has brand new arresting gear and catapults. Ford has a brand new radar system (that is getting replaced by SPY6 because half the radar wasn't funded for development). Ford has new elevators, weapons and IIRC aircraft.

Oh, and the development costs of those are all tacked onto CVN78's purchase price, with CVN79+ not paying a penny into the development funds.

LCS were supposed to have a local air defense system installed. Not funded by Congress. Which yes, basically makes them useless for their Littoral Combat mission unless operating under the cover of a DDG or CG (preferably a CG, since those have flag command spaces), but if you're going to send a DDG or CG there anyways, well, you might as well skip the LCS entirely. Current best use for the trimarans is as gator freighters. They have ro-ro access to the mission bay and can pack at least a company's worth of Marine stuff inside, plus have a flight deck big enough for an H53.

Cancelling the Zumwalts forced the Navy to rebuild their entire supply chain for Burke systems, plus rip out the Zumwalt tooling for Burke tooling (that was likely scrapped when the Zumwalts started construction)

Columbia Class is also eating a crapton of construction dollars. Not least because Congress/Navy (not sure which) deferred production of new SSBNs till the Ohios completely wore out. EB was sending engineers out to the fleet to talk to boomer sailors about how and why some Ohio systems are the way they are because EB hadn't designed a Boomer in 20+ years, there were no engineers left at EB who had designed the Ohios! (Friend of mine got a step designed into the system to get over the Main Induction piping in the superstructure. Engineer holding the tablet asked him why one was needed, he said "because while the induction piping on the Virginia class is 18" in diameter, the induction piping on the Ohios and Columbia classes is 36" in diameter. I'm 6'4" and I can't step over that." She added steps over it on the spot.)

I can keep going.
Click to expand...
You are confused as the Ford class Bechtel A1B nuclear reactors are designed to be refuelled in their mid-operational life of 50 years, its the S1B nuclear reactor for the Columbia class subs were designed to operate for 40 years without refueling.

My understanding the Ford cost quoted by the Navy of $13.3 Bn is in "nominal" dollars, not actual which CBO estimated at $16.1 Bn in 2019 even though the Phase 1 build was not completed till Dec 2021 when the last of the AWE were installed and and excludes the costs of Phase 2 build as well as the development costs which GAO quoted as an additional $7.1 Bn. To save money Ford was not equipped to fly the F-35C and the Navy objected when Congress found out and mandated the Kennedy CVN-79 be equipped to fly the F-35C.
 
Cordy said:
You are confused as the Ford class Bechtel A1B nuclear reactors are designed to be refuelled in their mid-operational life of 50 years, its the S1B nuclear reactor for the Columbia class subs were designed to operate for 40 years without refueling.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. Where did I say that the Ford and Columbia class had the same reactor? The carrier reactors are something like 2x the output of even the (relatively) monstrous powerplant in the Columbias. They do share a lot of the same operational concepts: lifespan, natural circulation in the primary loop even at full power, and I'm sure there's a couple others that I'm forgetting. Maybe natural circulation or scoops in the secondary loop as well. Both of those mean you don't need pumps running while the reactor is (and the ship is in motion, in the case of scoops).

As to my point about NEW DESIGNS: Both of those are brand new reactor designs, and are the first reactors designed by Bechtel. USN designation system: first letter is platform, number is iteration, last letter is design firm. A1B = First Carrier reactor designed by Bechtel. S1B = First Submarine reactor designed by Bechtel. (G for design firm is General Electric, W is Westinghouse)


Cordy said:
My understanding the Ford cost quoted by the Navy of $13.3 Bn is in "nominal" dollars, not actual which CBO estimated at $16.1 Bn in 2019 even though the Phase 1 build was not completed till Dec 2021 when the last of the AWE were installed and and excludes the costs of Phase 2 build as well as the development costs which GAO quoted as an additional $7.1 Bn. To save money Ford was not equipped to fly the F-35C and the Navy objected when Congress found out and mandated the Kennedy CVN-79 be equipped to fly the F-35C.
Click to expand...
Right. There are a lot more capabilities packed into the Ford than the Nimitz. Several times the electrical generation capacity, especially since there aren't any steam lines going anywhere but in the engineroom. All other heating and cooling is electric. Whole ship has wifi and gigabit Ethernet.
 
Cordy said:
You are confused as the Ford class Bechtel A1B nuclear reactors are designed to be refuelled in their mid-operational life of 50 years, its the S1B nuclear reactor for the Columbia class subs were designed to operate for 40 years without refueling.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. Where did I say that the Ford and Columbia class had the same reactor? The carrier reactors are something like 2x the output of even the (relatively) monstrous powerplant in the Columbias. They do share a lot of the same operational concepts: lifespan, natural circulation in the primary loop even at full power, and I'm sure there's a couple others that I'm forgetting. Maybe natural circulation or scoops in the secondary loop as well. Both of those mean you don't need pumps running while the reactor is (and the ship is in motion, in the case of scoops).

As to my point about NEW DESIGNS: Both of those are brand new reactor designs, and are the first reactors designed by Bechtel. USN designation system: first letter is platform, number is iteration, last letter is design firm. A1B = First Carrier reactor designed by Bechtel. S1B = First Submarine reactor designed by Bechtel. (G for design firm is General Electric, W is Westinghouse)

Scott Kenny:
Ford has brand new reactors, designed to last 50 years without refueling.
Click to expand...

Apologies what i was trying to point out was your statement Ford new reactors were "designed to last 50 without refueling" was incorrect but have to be refueled after 25 years and assumed you had mixed them up with the new Columbia SB1 reactor which does not have to be refueled during its 40 year life.
 
Refueling the Ford reactors after 25 years isn't nearly the hassle of refueling a boomer, sinc 25 years is the natural mid-life upgrade point of the ship anyway, and it's going ot be torn apart for a large part anyway.

Whereas you really do not want to cut into a pressure hull if you can avoid it.
 
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1775271220789006471
View: https://twitter.com/NavalInstitute/status/1775271220789006471
Click to expand...
Be USN
Picked an MOTS design to reduce R&D cost
Picked the most basic armanent setup possible to accelerate fitting out phase
Changed over 85% of the base design
Delayed it by 3 years
PLAN probably have 10 Type 054B and 4 Type 055 Batch 2 by then
Click to expand...
Side note: I would understand shifting measurements to metric, preparing the yards and modifying the FREMM to take as much existing components as possible, but why dont the USN just adopt Eurofrigate survivability and habitability standards as-is, if they are so regularly touted to be far better than the USN specs?

Now someone needs to make a "Pentagon War" remake, but this time target the FFG-62s...
 
Last edited:
asVAL said:
Side note: I would understand shifting measurements to metric, preparing the yards and modifying the FREMM to take as much existing components as possible, but why dont the USN just adopt Eurofrigate survivability and habitability standards as-is, if they are so regularly touted to be far better than the USN specs?

Now someone needs to make a "Pentagon War" remake, but this time target the FFG-62s...
Click to expand...
because the last time they accepted anything other than USN survivability standards, we got the LCS.
 
Scott Kenny said:
because the last time they accepted anything other than USN survivability standards, we got the LCS.
Click to expand...

To be picky, LCS was built to a USN survivability standard. The issue is that it was designed to Level 1 (the level for MCMs and patrol craft) instead of Level 2 (for frigates and amphibs). They tried to adjust that a bit, to what they call Level 1+, but it's still sub-par for a combatant.
 
TomS said:
To be picky, LCS was built to a USN survivability standard. The issue is that it was designed to Level 1 (the level for MCMs and patrol craft) instead of Level 2 (for frigates and amphibs). They tried to adjust that a bit, to what they call Level 1+, but it's still sub-par for a combatant.
Click to expand...
Point. Not an acceptable survivability standard for something that's supposed to be sailing into harm's way...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Point. Not an acceptable survivability standard for something that's supposed to be sailing into harm's way...
Click to expand...
It was no worse then what they were to replaced.

Which was the minesweepers and patrol craft and not Frigates or Amphibious types. With what you need to use to hit an LCS being an order of magnitude more then what you needed for the Avengers, Cyclones or even the Perries.


There is a balance you need to strike for the design duties and the LCS does do that for its AGAIN design duties.

Using them in none design duties well...
 
Firefinder said:
It was no worse then what they were to replaced.

Which was the minesweepers and patrol craft and not Frigates or Amphibious types. With what you need to use to hit an LCS being an order of magnitude more then what you needed for the Avengers, Cyclones or even the Perries.


There is a balance you need to strike for the design duties and the LCS does do that for its AGAIN design duties.

Using them in none design duties well...
Click to expand...
Not building the modules to use them in minesweeping is a programmatic issue.

Which left the LCS as patrol craft or frigates.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not building the modules to use them in minesweeping is a programmatic issue.

Which left the LCS as patrol craft or frigates.
Click to expand...
The Minesweeper module is one of the modules that DID get build.


IOC like last year.

Believe the ASW one is another one thats been issued out. Through that one been help by the fact of main kit, the tow array can be slap onto damn near any ship which can carry it.

Its the surface combat one that gotten trash.
 
Firefinder said:
Believe the ASW one is another one thats been issued out. Through that one been help by the fact of main kit, the tow array can be slap onto damn near any ship which can carry it.
Click to expand...


No, the ASW package was formally terminated two years ago. LCS turns out to be way too noisy to be a viable towed array platform ("loud as an aircraft carrier" is the Navy's official statement)

The SUW package is fielded, with some LCS getting extra 30mm guns and Hellfire Longbow. NSM is also being fitted, though I think it's not directly part of the SUW package.

www.navalnews.com

Admiral Gilday Explains LCS ASW and MCM Module Decisions - Naval News

U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday at the CSIS webinar held on April 28, 2022 answered a question posed by Naval News on the status of the ASW and MCM Mission Modules for the LCS.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

The big thing we're likely to see going forward is that the packages are basically permanent to a given ship, rather than being swapped frequently. And we may well see one class dedicated to MCM and one to SUW.
 
TomS said:
No, the ASW package was formally terminated two years ago. LCS turns out to be way too noisy to be a viable towed array platform ("loud as an aircraft carrier" is the Navy's official statement)
Click to expand...
Ironic that carriers are quieter than a lot of other skimmer targets...
 
Firefinder said:
The Minesweeper module is one of the modules that DID get build.


IOC like last year.

Believe the ASW one is another one thats been issued out. Through that one been help by the fact of main kit, the tow array can be slap onto damn near any ship which can carry it.

Its the surface combat one that gotten trash.
Click to expand...
Only how many years since the LCS were first commissioned?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Point. Not an acceptable survivability standard for something that's supposed to be sailing into harm's way...
Click to expand...
IIRC, the ship was supposed to be abandoned if it suffered significant damage, so no need to to have the survivability qualities of destroyers.
 
Josh_TN said:
That seems hard to believe…example?
Click to expand...
From when USS Georgia BN got tagged to help the CVN72 carrier group on work-ups. We were in the area on Midshipman Ops, so generally being noisy and wanting to do cool stuff to show off.

Sonar guys could hear the escorts, not the carrier. (At least not at the range we were at, something around 30km)
 
Surprising. I would think four screws would make for an obvious and loud target. I’d think launches and landing would be pretty distinct transients as well.
 
Josh_TN said:
Surprising. I would think four screws would make for an obvious and loud target. I’d think launches and landing would be pretty distinct transients as well.
Click to expand...
Depends on how hard they're turning. If you aren't cavitating too much (hard to avoid cavitating when you're only 40ft below the surface) they're pretty quiet.

Picking up 4 screws on the same bearing with roughly the same RPM/blade count was the guaranteed "gotcha" for detecting a carrier, just like picking up gas turbines was the guaranteed warship.

I'm not sure how much air ops they were doing at the time we found them, so can't speak to those transients.
 
Do CVNs use PRARIE or MASKER?

(Off Topic, but I’ll drop the subject after this).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom