• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

FFG(X)

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
Even closer to today, the Navy does this. The Arleigh Burke class are built by both Ingalls and Bath Iron Works.

I think the Burke is a slightly different case. IIRC (and I could well be wrong) the Navy contracted the design separately from the actual shipbuilding effort, and the design work is mostly Gibbs and Cox, not one of the shipyards. It's the old system where the Navy manages most of the design work and the yards build to the final design.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
the Secretary of the Navy shall require that an offeror submit a proposal that provides for
conveying technical data as part of the proposal for the frigate.

That's nice and vague: I read that as there's an option for the USG to buy the data rights.
..and construct a better ship loosely based on the first one.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
the Secretary of the Navy shall require that an offeror submit a proposal that provides for
conveying technical data as part of the proposal for the frigate.

That's nice and vague: I read that as there's an option for the USG to buy the data rights.

I don't read it that way. It's all "shall," not "may," and the later clauses require a recompetition using the technical data package acquired in the original contract.
 
Last edited:

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
the Secretary of the Navy shall require that an offeror submit a proposal that provides for
conveying technical data as part of the proposal for the frigate.

That's nice and vague: I read that as there's an option for the USG to buy the data rights.

I don't read it that way. It's all "shall," not "may," and the later clauses require a recompetition using the technical data package acquired in the original contract.

No dispute that they'll need to acquire the data rights. It's just not clear that the contract as awarded furnishes those rights.
It could be like JLTV: the offerers were required to submit pricing for an option for the USG to acquire data rights. The USG later paid for the option.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
the Secretary of the Navy shall require that an offeror submit a proposal that provides for
conveying technical data as part of the proposal for the frigate.

That's nice and vague: I read that as there's an option for the USG to buy the data rights.

I don't read it that way. It's all "shall," not "may," and the later clauses require a recompetition using the technical data package acquired in the original contract.

No dispute that they'll need to acquire the data rights. It's just not clear that the contract as awarded furnishes those rights.
It could be like JLTV: the offerers were required to submit pricing for an option for the USG to acquire data rights. The USG later paid for the option.

Oh, yeah, that's possible. And would sort of make sense. If for some reason they terminated the program before the recompete, they'd have saved some money there.
 
Last edited:

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
The CRS FFG report, July 28, 2020, states Navy has carte blanche to re-compete build of ships 2 to 10, doesn't explicity state Navy owns the IPR to the F/MM FFG design, though its implied.

“On April 30, 2020, the Navy announced that it had awarded the FFG(X) contract to the team led by Fincantieri/Marinette Marine (F/MM) of Marinette, WI. F/MM was awarded a fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract for Detail Design and Construction (DD&C) for up to 10 ships in the program—the lead ship plus nine option ships. // Under the DD&C contact awarded to F/MM, Navy has the option of recompeting the FFG(X) program after the lead ship (if none of the nine option ships are exercised), after the 10th ship (if all nine of the option ships are exercised), or somewhere in between (if some but not all of the nine option ships are exercised).”
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
If this foreign drug deal for jobs were satisfactory then we wouldnt even be bantering about "data rights" and "recompete" on even the 2nd ship. the oppositon exists.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
If this foreign drug deal for jobs were satisfactory then we wouldnt even be bantering about "data rights" and "recompete" on even the 2nd ship. the oppositon exists.
Please prove that there were irregularities with the deal. PLEASE. Go on. I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath, because I'm quite sure the basis for your complaints is your rectal cavity.
..explained in many posts that this ship is so ill equipped as to be an national security threat more than an implement and therefore a waste and danger so save your emotional postings. Please dont bunch your panties.
 
Last edited:

totallyaverage

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
12
Reaction score
19
If this foreign drug deal for jobs were satisfactory then we wouldnt even be bantering about "data rights" and "recompete" on even the 2nd ship. the oppositon exists.
Please prove that there were irregularities with the deal. PLEASE. Go on. I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath, because I'm quite sure the basis for your complaints is your rectal cavity.
..explained in many posts that this ship is so ill equipped as to be an national security threat more than an implement and therefore a waste and danger so save your emotional postings. Please dont bunch your panties.

It's probably one of the best equipped frigates yet designed.

But the US military is buying it, therefore it is bad according to you.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
If this foreign drug deal for jobs were satisfactory then we wouldnt even be bantering about "data rights" and "recompete" on even the 2nd ship. the oppositon exists.
Please prove that there were irregularities with the deal. PLEASE. Go on. I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath, because I'm quite sure the basis for your complaints is your rectal cavity.
..explained in many posts that this ship is so ill equipped as to be an national security threat more than an implement and therefore a waste and danger so save your emotional postings. Please dont bunch your panties.

It will be one of the most capable surface combatants in the world for less than half the price of a Burke, and perhaps far more importantly, probably around half the operating costs. My only concern is that they stop at ten and build some completely different design rather than sticking to this modern, stable platform with an efficient propulsion system well suited to ASW. I hope that these continue to be built to roughly the same specs (with incremental modifications between batches) until there are at least three flights of them.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
206
Reaction score
138
The FFG-x is quite well armed for it's job, with sufficient space for AA and ASW missiles in it's VLS, plus room for sixteen SSM. It's not an AAW destroyer, and it's not supposed to be.
It's got power generation coming out of it's behind, so it can actually service coming technologies like laser and/or railguns, and it carries a 57 mm which also is sufficient for the job. It's sensor suite is quite powerful, and would have been pretty much the same across all proposals, since the USN detailed it.
It's got excellent range, especially compared to the Burkes.

Just because it doesn't carry 16 inch guns and the VLS farm of a Tico doesn't mean it's a bad ship.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
My only concern is that they stop at ten and build some completely different design

I apologize if I got this rumor started. From what we figured out above by reading the authorization act and the contract award, the recompete at (or before) 10 units should be for alternative builders for the same basic design, not a new design. Mea culpa.

They could possibly take the opportunity of a recompete for "Flight II" to do a mild stretch and bump the VLS capacity to 48 cells. According to a Navy information paper reported in the recent CRS reports, that would add about 200 tons and $16-24 million in cost but require redoing a bunch of seakeeping studies and reworking ship services. They didn't do that up front because changing the spec would have delayed the award and lead-ship construction. If they planned it going into a recompete, they could do it "in stride" and keep the line rolling.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
Ah ok, I didn't quite understand that from the posts. I thought there was still some question as to the basic design, not just the builder. The posts above kinda implied that the US left the option open to buy the design to farm out but it wasn't clear that had occurred. In any case, I suspect so long as the initial units are built close to budget and schedule that everyone would be loath to switch horses.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
a recompete for "Flight II" to do a mild stretch and bump the VLS capacity to 48 cells. According to a Navy information paper reported in the recent CRS reports, that would add about 200 tons and $16-24 million in cost but require redoing a bunch of seakeeping studies and reworking ship services. They didn't do that up front because changing the spec would have delayed the award and lead-ship construction. If they planned it going into a recompete, they could do it "in stride" and keep the line rolling.

First logical explaination for such a inferior ship heard.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
If this foreign drug deal for jobs were satisfactory then we wouldnt even be bantering about "data rights" and "recompete" on even the 2nd ship. the oppositon exists.
Please prove that there were irregularities with the deal. PLEASE. Go on. I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath, because I'm quite sure the basis for your complaints is your rectal cavity.
..explained in many posts that this ship is so ill equipped as to be an national security threat more than an implement and therefore a waste and danger so save your emotional postings. Please dont bunch your panties.
...I think it's time to step away from the bong jsport. The devil's weed is not good for your faculties.
For someone to make this statement about someone they have never met is proof the accuser needs their head examined.
 
Last edited:

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
206
Reaction score
138
If this foreign drug deal for jobs were satisfactory then we wouldnt even be bantering about "data rights" and "recompete" on even the 2nd ship. the oppositon exists.
Please prove that there were irregularities with the deal. PLEASE. Go on. I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath, because I'm quite sure the basis for your complaints is your rectal cavity.
..explained in many posts that this ship is so ill equipped as to be an national security threat more than an implement and therefore a waste and danger so save your emotional postings. Please dont bunch your panties.
...I think it's time to step away from the bong jsport. The devil's weed is not good for your faculties.
For someone to make this statement about someone they have never met is proof the accuser needs their head examined.
It's either that, or you're just making stuff up as you go, pretending to know better than the people who put out the tender in the first place.

But if that's the case, then why haven't you got some amazing consulting job in the defense industry?
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
a recompete for "Flight II" to do a mild stretch and bump the VLS capacity to 48 cells. According to a Navy information paper reported in the recent CRS reports, that would add about 200 tons and $16-24 million in cost but require redoing a bunch of seakeeping studies and reworking ship services. They didn't do that up front because changing the spec would have delayed the award and lead-ship construction. If they planned it going into a recompete, they could do it "in stride" and keep the line rolling.

First logical explaination for such a inferior ship heard.
Thank you again Tom for clarifing what many were asking about the underwhelming first ship capability. It appears some refuse to admit the first ship does not have enough capability despite what recent CRS reports and even justify their arguements by posting that the ship is optimum. It is too bad people keep talking out of their....
 
Last edited:

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
206
Reaction score
138
a recompete for "Flight II" to do a mild stretch and bump the VLS capacity to 48 cells. According to a Navy information paper reported in the recent CRS reports, that would add about 200 tons and $16-24 million in cost but require redoing a bunch of seakeeping studies and reworking ship services. They didn't do that up front because changing the spec would have delayed the award and lead-ship construction. If they planned it going into a recompete, they could do it "in stride" and keep the line rolling.

First logical explaination for such a inferior ship heard.
Thank you again Tom for clarifing what many were asking about the underwhelming first ship capability. It appears some refuse to admit the first ship does not have enough capability despite what recent CRS reports and even justify their arguements by posting that the ship is optimum. It is too bad people keep talking out of their....
He said :
They could possibly take the opportunity of a recompete for "Flight II" to do a mild stretch and bump the VLS capacity to 48 cells. According to a Navy information paper reported in the recent CRS reports, that would add about 200 tons and $16-24 million in cost but require redoing a bunch of seakeeping studies and reworking ship services. They didn't do that up front because changing the spec would have delayed the award and lead-ship construction. If they planned it going into a recompete, they could do it "in stride" and keep the line rolling.
There's no hard facts here other than the note about cost, dude, just a "possibly" and an "if". But what you're forgetting is that if the navy wanted 48 cells from the beginning, they could have asked for them.

The only ones I've seen clamoring for more weapons are, well, not people associated in any official way with the navy and it's decision making process. Like you.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
U are stretching it. Unless you are a Russian or PLAN plant then you and everyone else knows it was compromise.
bump the VLS capacity to 48 cells is a start. Splitting hairs wont get you that big defense job especially if your preface is jokie
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
206
Reaction score
138
Not quoting someone when you're replying to them is rude.

U are stretching it. Unless you are a Russian or PLAN plant then you and everyone else knows it was compromise.
bump the VLS capacity to 48 cells is a start. Splitting hairs wont get you that big defense job especially if your preface is jokie
So what you're saying is, is that despite being able to dictate what weapons fit would go on the FFG-X in the first place, the Navy is so riddled with Russian and/or PLAN plants that they deliberately didn't specify 48 cells so that America would end up with a subpar ship?

That's a mighty accusation mate. One might almost say that it would require proof.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
Not quoting someone when you're replying to them is rude.

U are stretching it. Unless you are a Russian or PLAN plant then you and everyone else knows it was compromise.
bump the VLS capacity to 48 cells is a start. Splitting hairs wont get you that big defense job especially if your preface is jokie
So what you're saying is, is that despite being able to dictate what weapons fit would go on the FFG-X in the first place, the Navy is so riddled with Russian and/or PLAN plants that they deliberately didn't specify 48 cells so that America would end up with a subpar ship?

That's a mighty accusation mate. One might almost say that it would require proof.
Lets juist say anyone, like you who claimed Flight 1 has a sufficient load, as you did, is advocating for a losing ship.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
206
Reaction score
138
Not quoting someone when you're replying to them is rude.

U are stretching it. Unless you are a Russian or PLAN plant then you and everyone else knows it was compromise.
bump the VLS capacity to 48 cells is a start. Splitting hairs wont get you that big defense job especially if your preface is jokie
So what you're saying is, is that despite being able to dictate what weapons fit would go on the FFG-X in the first place, the Navy is so riddled with Russian and/or PLAN plants that they deliberately didn't specify 48 cells so that America would end up with a subpar ship?

That's a mighty accusation mate. One might almost say that it would require proof.
Lets juist say anyone, like you who claimed Flight 1 has a sufficient load, as you did, is advocating for a losing ship.
Like... The USN?

Who ordered Flight 1?

Mate.

Like, I've asked this before, but what ARE your credentials to making such a claim, other than "muh gut feeling and muh glorious VLS count"? Please remember that the USN has trouble filling all of it's VLS right now.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
To clarify, the Navy's information paper about adding VLS almost certainly came in response to a Congressional (staff) inquiry. And Congressional staffers often know only slightly more about ship design than jsport.

Edit: Now I've had time to check, it certainly was: "Navy information paper entitled “FFG(X) Cost to Grow to 48 cell VLS,” dated May 14, 2019, received from Navy Office of Legislative Affairs on June 14, 2019."

It's cited in recent versions of the CRS report Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, which is worth a read on general principles if you're into this sort of thing. Lots of discussions on why one might favor one option or another on various aspects of the design or program management, but no answers (CRS's job is to highlight issues, not provide conclusions.)
 
Last edited:

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
For the upumteen time. If there was no need for more VLS then many would not be talking about it. Cost was is and will remain why not. How many does this have to be repeated. DoD continues to to be priced into defeat. Jeepers
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
623
Reaction score
924
For the upumteen time. If there was no need for more VLS then many would not be talking about it. Cost was is and will remain why not. How many does this have to be repeated. DoD continues to to be priced into defeat. Jeepers
You do realize that on a billion dollar warship, a 16-24 million dollar cost increase is the literal equivalent of pocket change, right? Price isn't the driver here. The Navy decided it doesn't need the capability. But Armchair Admirals are convinced that they know better than the Navy does
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
It's got power generation coming out of it's behind,

Which is weird because power and outfit density have been shown to be large cost drivers for warships.
Quite how FFG(X) can achieve better metrics than say the Flight I Burke's in this regard despite being smaller
yet still cost less is strange to me.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
For the upumteen time. If there was no need for more VLS then many would not be talking about it. Cost was is and will remain why not. How many does this have to be repeated. DoD continues to to be priced into defeat. Jeepers
You do realize that on a billion dollar warship, a 16-24 million dollar cost increase is the literal equivalent of pocket change, right? Price isn't the driver here. The Navy decided it doesn't need the capability. But Armchair Admirals are convinced that they know better than the Navy does
You must joking. Any one paying attention to comparisons on this thread show the total number of PLAN combatants will severely outnumber USN total in decade or so in the Pacific. This is every US ship being deployed in the Pacific. Even if these ships are lesser they are just too many not to win. Meanwhile the USN must cover global commitments so would not even have the ships necessary to be outnumberd. Nearly double outnumbered. .
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
623
Reaction score
924
For the upumteen time. If there was no need for more VLS then many would not be talking about it. Cost was is and will remain why not. How many does this have to be repeated. DoD continues to to be priced into defeat. Jeepers
You do realize that on a billion dollar warship, a 16-24 million dollar cost increase is the literal equivalent of pocket change, right? Price isn't the driver here. The Navy decided it doesn't need the capability. But Armchair Admirals are convinced that they know better than the Navy does
You must joking. Any one paying attention to comparisons on this thread show the total number of PLAN combatants will severely outnumber USN total in decade or so in the Pacific. This is every US ship being deployed in the Pacific. Even if these ships are lesser they are just too many not to win. Meanwhile the USN must cover global commitments so would not even have the ships necessary to be outnumberd. Nearly double outnumbered. .
Now who's joking? Who cares about total number? Particularly when most of those "ships" can be sunk with 20mm. They're coastal patrol craft that will never even sniff blue water or a USN Task Force. Not every ship needs to be "the best thing since sliced bread." They need to do a specific job. These ships can do that. And if you're complaining about total numbers, I would have thought you would be overjoyed at the lower cost. Because that means more can be built. So which is it? Fewer, more expensive assets? Or more, cheaper assets. You can't have it both ways. Not unless you live in a fantasy world where budgets don't matter.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
The destroyers (or cruisers as the case may be) could be part of the PLAN strategy to have naval dominance by 2030 and naval superiority by 2049.

 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
20mms dont sink destroyers we are in romper room now.

Just the Fast Attack boats which a 20mm might threaten a bitoverwhelm the USN and in the south China sea alone they will be everywhere. USN has none . Look at the facts now as apparently you dont have the bandwidth for 2030 2040 2050 which is way worse. Living a fantasy world.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
It's got power generation coming out of it's behind,

Which is weird because power and outfit density have been shown to be large cost drivers for warships.
Quite how FFG(X) can achieve better metrics than say the Flight I Burke's in this regard despite being smaller
yet still cost less is strange to me.

So, CODLAG rather than gas turbine propulsion plus stand-alone SSGTs.
They talk about 12 MW total (with the option to upgrade to 16MW just by swapping in bigger diesels in the same space) but dropping down from 27 to 24 knots when that much power is demanded. I think they might be taking basically all the diesel generator output from the diesel-electric part of the drive train as ship service electrical power and using the gas turbine alone for propulsion when the combat system needs maximum electrical power.
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
I'm realizing that we don't actually have full details of what the propulsion system for FFG(X) looks like. All the brochures, etc just say CODLAG, without mentioning the specifics.

Looking at the the images we have so far for FFG(X), I believe it has only one GT, but I'm not sure if we know that for certain. The Italian FREMMs have 1 x LM2500+G4 plus 4 x diesel generators (2.2-2.8 MWe, depending on ship). That falls a bit short of the 12 MWe number being quoted, but an upgrade to 3 MWe generators would be pretty straightforward (and 4MWe not terrible, I assume). But Fincantieri's FREMM brochure mentions an AEGIS FREMM that would have 2 x LM2500 and 2 x 6.5MWe diesel generators. That makes a lot of sense for USN preferences. It's still about half of a DDG power plant (2 GTs and 2 generators versus 4 GTs and 3 generators) but would fit the 12 MWe of available power and 24 knots on turbines alone.
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
1,813
Look at the facts now as apparently you don't have the bandwidth for 2030 2040 2050 which is way worse. Living a fantasy world.

By your standard the USN should have had all today's naval problems ironed out in 1990 - the year they were still scared of not having 600 ships to defeat the global threat of the Soviet Navy... then one year later the threat navy was tied up rusting in port.
Military organisations never really work like that, long-term plans only take you so far. Most naval arms races have been about fighting the medium-term at best.

Naval arms races perhaps more than land-based and even air-based arms races are uniquely tied up with construction, what the potential enemy is building and what they might build next, few naval arms races looked more then a decade ahead. So often those programmes changed with political and financial whims and in secret societies like the USSR and China you can't easily tell what the future programmes are - although as can be seen on this forum, the wealth of leaked images from Chinese shipyards and commercial satellite coverage brings a level of exposure the USSR never had to endure.

Wars are not won or lost on weapons alone, whether you have 32 or 48 VLS cells isn't going to matter on the grander scale. Its armchair what-iffery that ignores logistics, the quality of the crews, the quality of the staff officers, the strategy of either side. Both sides will have strengths and weaknesses, some will matter more than others.

Lastly, the FFG(X) is a frigate, not a destroyer. FFG(X) is never going to compare against a Type 055 DDG, but if you look at the Type 054A, you'll see its a fair match, right down to the 32-cell VLS.
For some reason the USN has never really grasped small ships in its history, they always seem to struggle to design anything below a destroyer.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
623
Reaction score
924
For some reason the USN has never really grasped small ships in its history, they always seem to struggle to design anything below a destroyer.
Which is strange, considering that the USN started as a small ship Navy and built some of the best small ships in the world. But somewhere along the way, it forgot how to build small combatants
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
Look at the facts now as apparently you don't have the bandwidth for 2030 2040 2050 which is way worse. Living a fantasy world.

By your standard the USN should have had all today's naval problems ironed out in 1990 - the year they were still scared of not having 600 ships to defeat the global threat of the Soviet Navy... then one year later the threat navy was tied up rusting in port.
Military organisations never really work like that, long-term plans only take you so far. Most naval arms races have been about fighting the medium-term at best.

Naval arms races perhaps more than land-based and even air-based arms races are uniquely tied up with construction, what the potential enemy is building and what they might build next, few naval arms races looked more then a decade ahead. So often those programmes changed with political and financial whims and in secret societies like the USSR and China you can't easily tell what the future programmes are - although as can be seen on this forum, the wealth of leaked images from Chinese shipyards and commercial satellite coverage brings a level of exposure the USSR never had to endure.

Wars are not won or lost on weapons alone, whether you have 32 or 48 VLS cells isn't going to matter on the grander scale. Its armchair what-iffery that ignores logistics, the quality of the crews, the quality of the staff officers, the strategy of either side. Both sides will have strengths and weaknesses, some will matter more than others.

Lastly, the FFG(X) is a frigate, not a destroyer. FFG(X) is never going to compare against a Type 055 DDG, but if you look at the Type 054A, you'll see its a fair match, right down to the 32-cell VLS.
For some reason the USN has never really grasped small ships in its history, they always seem to struggle to design anything below a destroyer.
Someone needs to show how the USN wants less firepower and at range ie VLS while being continually out giunned. Seems like piled on emotional attacks.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
T Frigat of the size we are talking about is waste w/o max VLS. This doe not have to be this hard. Along time ago folks knew this is alarge frigate. So why is there wasted space uti.lizing Hellfire?
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
1,813
For some reason the USN has never really grasped small ships in its history, they always seem to struggle to design anything below a destroyer.
Which is strange, considering that the USN started as a small ship Navy and built some of the best small ships in the world. But somewhere along the way, it forgot how to build small combatants

Perhaps its the artefact of being an oceanic navy?
The Royal Navy had a lot of bases to defend and operated a network of harbours as well as a large merchant marine to guard and perhaps for that reason never lost sight of the humble ship for trade protection. Saying that the USCG cutters could have amply given good coverage in this area. The US has never had a massive merchant marine and being a continental power sitting on two oceans had a unique problem other naval powers didn't have to face.

The post-war frigates were all quite lightly armed and although capable in their own right, were probably behind the curve in terms of European frigates for packing in a lot of value into the few hulls they could afford. But the Knox and Perry classes made up for that in being churned out in large numbers. I still think today that the best frigates are designed in Europe.
I don't doubt that 50 FFG(X) would make a great asset to the USN. I suspect this many will never be built, but 30 years ago that would have been the plan.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
623
Reaction score
924
The post-war frigates were all quite lightly armed and although capable in their own right, were probably behind the curve in terms of European frigates for packing in a lot of value into the few hulls they could afford. But the Knox and Perry classes made up for that in being churned out in large numbers. I still think today that the best frigates are designed in Europe.
I don't doubt that 50 FFG(X) would make a great asset to the USN. I suspect this many will never be built, but 30 years ago that would have been the plan.
Well, a lot of European "frigates" are the same size and cost of a Burke. So you have to be at least a little selective. But I think you're right overall. The European navies don't have the budgets that the USN does, so they have a much bigger incentive to cram as much capability into as cheap a platform as possible. It does explain why the USN would consider European frigates more attractive than updated LCS though (which IIRC, was the original plan to fill the need for frigates).

As for numbers, I think it depends on how aggressively China and Russia want to play. If they keep things on a slow boil, 20-30 makes sense. But if they keep ratcheting up the tension, and if China does in particular, then I could easily see 50-70 hulls being built considering the sheer amount of trade that the US does with Aisa.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
The CRS report discusses the possibilty/need of more VLS to survive in the Pacific.. This has been a pile on attack based on personal animous from previous clashes which oh by the way is to disempower the USN.. Emotional garbage,
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,284
Reaction score
1,211
Coming back to a reasonable tone would be a good idea, I think.
Please respond to arguments, not to those, who posted them.
 

Similar threads

Top