uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,816
Reaction score
2,862
The Knox and Perry class frigates were very much designed for the "roll over the Soviet fleet" task of the Cold War era made so real by the Clancy novels.
I find it much harder to get a clear picture of what a modern USN frigate would find itself doing. NATO, Taiwan, Japan, S Korea and Vietnam all have substantial forces. US airpower and its nuclear shield are more immediate than any prolongued naval confrontations in the Pacific or Atlantic.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
798
Random question popped into my head today- will FFGX have PAIRIE/MASKER? Probably less of a consideration in a CODLAG but as far as I know all the Burke’s still get it. But I never saw it in any of the specs.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
761
Reaction score
1,309
I'd assume so, since it's primary mission is ASW. They may have just included it under it's ASW system instead of listing it seperately.
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
660
Reaction score
1,346

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
761
Reaction score
1,309

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
2,554
I can't argue at all with that decision. I hope the following ships will continue that naming convention

Gonna run out of historical frigate names pretty fast (and let's be honest, no one wants to see a ship named Congress or President right now).
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
761
Reaction score
1,309
I can't argue at all with that decision. I hope the following ships will continue that naming convention

Gonna run out of historical frigate names pretty fast (and let's be honest, no one wants to see a ship named Congress or President right now).
Yeah, that's true. Though there are a ton of ship names that would be good. Like Leyte, Manila Bay, Princeton, Philippine Sea, Oriskany, Reprisal, Sangamon, Ranger, Coral Sea, Midway, etc.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
3,234
I think its a neat touch to get some old historical names back into use.
There are probably quite a few names that have never been used since the 1870s, post-civil war you can see a clear shift in naming away from locations and natural features towards people and civic areas.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
761
Reaction score
1,309
I think its a neat touch to get some old historical names back into use.
There are probably quite a few names that have never been used since the 1870s, post-civil war you can see a clear shift in naming away from locations and natural features towards people and civic areas.
It'd be nice to have a new Monitor
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
2,554
I think its a neat touch to get some old historical names back into use.
There are probably quite a few names that have never been used since the 1870s, post-civil war you can see a clear shift in naming away from locations and natural features towards people and civic areas.
It'd be nice to have a new Monitor

Maybe we can take some of those new Marine transports and turn them into missile barges. Monitor would suit that sort of ship.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
693
I can't argue at all with that decision. I hope the following ships will continue that naming convention

Gonna run out of historical frigate names pretty fast (and let's be honest, no one wants to see a ship named Congress or President right now).
Not that fast, the biggest problem (aside from oddballs like Queen of France) is that the state names are already spoken for. Could also stretch a bit to include steam sloops and 90-day gunboats from the CW era. Not that I expect it to go that long, the more likely outcome is a transition to city names.

However I'm a little sad that he didn't go all the way and go with Alliance Class, since the FREMM originates from our allies and is an American improvement of a European design much as the original Alliance was.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
798
WWII DE names might be a good source. Ships from the Taffy force for stance.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
2,554
However I'm a little sad that he didn't go all the way and go with Alliance Class, since the FREMM originates from our allies and is an American improvement of a European design much as the original Alliance was.

That would have been nice.
However, we know this administration's opinion of alliances, especially with Europe.


WWII DE names might be a good source. Ships from the Taffy force for stance.

Yep, some good ones there. Samuel B. Roberts should be back. And some others. I wonder if any got picked up for DDGs -- I'd have to go look.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
2,554
This is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while.

JSF (the fighter) only became a thing because it offered a radically new capability that only the US could realistically bring at the time -- a truly low-observable strike fighter. The allies jumped on because they wanted that capability but could not develop it on their own. And for all its troubles, the US aircraft building industry is actually pretty efficient. Building an F-35 equivalent overseas isn't going to be substantially cheaper or faster than doing it here.

When it comes to warships, the US is in nothing like this commanding a position. Indeed, we had to go to foreign designers because our own capacity to design a satisfactory frigate was decidedly questionable. And we do not have a monopoly on any of the technologies needed for a leading edge frigate. Indeed, our allies are already designing and building ships that are fully the equal of the FFG(X) without our help. Other countries have ample facilities for building such ships, many of them cheaper and more efficient than in the United States. So there's no great incentive for our allies to jump into a program like a "Joint Strike Frigate." (I'm not even going into why that name is stupid. Just look up the definition of Joint for starters...)

And finally, we actually have a really clear example of what a clusterfuck a US-led multinational frigate design would look like. See NFR-90. Nothing has really changed that would make it any better now. Navies have very different philosophies around weapon and system design in ways that air forces really don't. Trying to roll a one-size-fits-all frigate just isn't going to work on a model that looks even a little like JSF.
 
Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,444
Reaction score
1,407
There should be the ability to design and develop hulls in various classes with the ability to carry different sensors etc. Why we cannot is a miss Terry.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
1,716
This is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while.

Even forgetting the technology side, has he actually looked at who might need a "Joint Strike Frigate"? The UK, Canada, Australia are all buying Type 26 (and 31 in the UK), the French and Italians will be pretty much up to size on their fleets post FREMM, and FTI for the French. Norway at most needs one replacement for Helge Ingstad. Germany and the Netherlands are teamed for a new frigate c2030. Japan builds its own designs, Spain builds its own designs. That leaves what, Portugal, Greece, and Denmark? And a Joint Strike Frigate is likely too large to replace the Danish Thetis class? No way is Turkey being invited to joint at present.

He has to be looking at the ASEAN nations (and Taiwan?), Saudi and the Gulf States and maybe the North African states.

A collaboration with India, given their existing strong collaboration with Russia, would be interesting.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
3,234
Relax its just an idea in his head; we all get ideas, some of them are dumb and some of them are good. Probably best not to blurt out all your half-baked thoughts during a public talk.

Sounds more like they want a cheap second production site, maybe he's thinking of building a batch in South Korea or somewhere where shipbuilding costs are much lower. It's not quite the JSF concept but its clear he wants to spread the cost - but then if the USN was so worried maybe they shouldn't have taken a perfectly good off the shelf design and radically altered it.

As many have pointed out here - common ship designs have been a panacea that has never been achieved (even in the old days, an Elswick cruiser differed depending on who spec'd it) and trying to rejig FFG(X) to widen its appeal would probably distract from the production effort and piss off the FREMM salesmen.
 
Last edited:

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
308
Reaction score
294
Collaboration on frigates with the likes of SK, japan may actually work out since most of the sensors, equipment are already sourced/licensed out of US.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,566
Collaboration on frigates with the likes of SK, japan may actually work out since most of the sensors, equipment are already sourced/licensed out of US.

Are you referring to some down-the-line 'Joint Strike Frigate' project or does this relate to FFG(X)?

If the latter, the US has literally missed the boat(s). South Korean Daegu class frigates are already entering service and Japanese 30FFM hulls are on the ways.

Has first steel for the FFG(X) even been cut in Wisconsin?
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
308
Reaction score
294
If the latter, the US has literally missed the boat(s). South Korean Daegu class frigates are already entering service and Japanese 30FFM hulls are on the ways.
Daegu (3,000t) and 30FF(5000t) aren't exactly direct counterparts to FFGX (7000t). All of these have been tailored to their operators requirements.

ROK navy doesn't really demand long legs, and so we see similar sized ships carrying higher quantity of armament.

JMSDF, even though demanding longer endurance as compared to RokN, required a GP frigate that was quite cost concious.

The only way a multi national frigate program can be run is by allowing multiple packages of varying capabilities in a single platform. The FFgx as such could operate as a GP frigate for USN, a heavy frigate for JMSDF, and a light destroyer(KDDX) for RoKN, while running on equivalent base sensors, processing systems and adding/omitting others according to requirement.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
2,554
Relax its just an idea in his head; we all get ideas, some of them are dumb and some of them are good. Probably best to to blurt out all your half-baked thoughts during a public talk.

Sounds more like they want a cheap second production site, maybe he's thinking of building a batch in South Korea or somewhere where shipbuilding costs are much lower. It's not quite the JSF concept but its clear he wants to spread the cost - but then if the USN was so worried maybe they shouldn't have taken a perfectly good off the shelf design and radically altered it.

I think maybe the half-baked ideas should be saved for the office, where someone can point out how untennable they are before SECNAV blurts it out in public.

There is zero chance that Congress would authorize construction of a major warship (even just the hull) outside the United States. And I got the impression that it was really the other way around -- he was hoping to export this notional Joint Strike Frigate from US builders, like we did with some FFG-7s (though most were built abroad, IIRC).
 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
305
Reaction score
151
If the latter, the US has literally missed the boat(s). South Korean Daegu class frigates are already entering service and Japanese 30FFM hulls are on the ways.
Daegu (3,000t) and 30FF(5000t) aren't exactly direct counterparts to FFGX (7000t). All of these have been tailored to their operators requirements.

ROK navy doesn't really demand long legs, and so we see similar sized ships carrying higher quantity of armament.

JMSDF, even though demanding longer endurance as compared to RokN, required a GP frigate that was quite cost concious.

The only way a multi national frigate program can be run is by allowing multiple packages of varying capabilities in a single platform. The FFgx as such could operate as a GP frigate for USN, a heavy frigate for JMSDF, and a light destroyer(KDDX) for RoKN, while running on equivalent base sensors, processing systems and adding/omitting others according to requirement.

There's no way that Japan and Korea would collaborate on a shipbuilding project.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
693
Even NFR-90 didn't envision the US exporting a bunch of hulls, if that's what he's hoping for he should be tested for all the drugs. Outside WW2 and it's immediate aftermath, the US has never exported new-build small/medium combatants in significant numbers.

There IS opportunity to export/partner on design work, especially if they aim where the US industry is strong and most others are weak. For example, aircraft carriers.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
3,234
Relax its just an idea in his head; we all get ideas, some of them are dumb and some of them are good. Probably best to to blurt out all your half-baked thoughts during a public talk.

Sounds more like they want a cheap second production site, maybe he's thinking of building a batch in South Korea or somewhere where shipbuilding costs are much lower. It's not quite the JSF concept but its clear he wants to spread the cost - but then if the USN was so worried maybe they shouldn't have taken a perfectly good off the shelf design and radically altered it.

I think maybe the half-baked ideas should be saved for the office, where someone can point out how untennable they are before SECNAV blurts it out in public.

There is zero chance that Congress would authorize construction of a major warship (even just the hull) outside the United States. And I got the impression that it was really the other way around -- he was hoping to export this notional Joint Strike Frigate from US builders, like we did with some FFG-7s (though most were built abroad, IIRC).

But that idea is just as ludicrous, the US is already short of shipbuilding capacity and wants to ramp up the fleet size so why would they want to waste precious production slots for foreign buyers?

The US has come at the tail end of the frigate market to be honest, most of the big market navies are tied up with homegrown efforts and most reputable navies still try and build their own, if only to maintain an industrial base and to get exactly what they want. Even the UAE and Saudi Arabia want to transition from frigate buyers to frigate builders.
The FFG-7 export programme was a long time ago, Australia and Spain were already users of US ships and systems and Spain at that time was only building corvettes on its own, the modified Knox requiring US assistance.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
761
Reaction score
1,309

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
2,554
Apparently Greek shipbuilding industry is being offered cooperation with the FFG(X) program, as well as a chance to build the hulls for three of four planned MMSCs. I suspect this is a plan to establish basically a lead-follow relationship between Marinette and Onex and prepare the Greek yard to build the MMSCs and then some FFG(X) for the Greek Navy in the future. (And I'll bet the European FREMM builders are thrilled about that idea...) I guess this could be part of the "Joint Strike Frigate' concept above, though it is basically a conventional shipbuilding-for-export co-production model, not some radical new idea.

 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
3,234
Greece has history with the FREMM, they ordered six in 2009 then after the economic woes this got cut to two to four, but Germany complained about France offering them at no-cost for the five years. There were talks about leasing two FREMMs in 2018 but these went nowhere and instead Greece was looking at French FTI programme (Admiral Ronarc’h-class. It seems now Greece is looking at the MMSC. Either way the omens for success are not good given the indecision and inability to choose and design and fund it. There is the possibility that the recent Rafale deal might have made a naval purchase from France problematic given the generous support being given so there might have been a back-door deal to open the naval requirements to open tender and there are not that many low-cost frigate designs on the market - though it would seem the Type 31e should fit that bill equally well.

I presume the FFG(X) agreement Naval Group and Finicantieri signed would have small print about export rights, even though they seem to have sold the design rights to allow any US yard in theory to build them.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
2,554
Not sure if we've seen this before, but sanity appears to have prevailed and FFG(X) Hull 1, USS Constellation will be designated FFG-62. Looks like this was known back in October, at least, but I don't see it posted in this thread:


Edit: This does suggest that the idea of redesignating the LCSs as FFs is dead, since this number carries on directly from the old FF/FFG numbering that ended with USS Ingraham (FFG-61)
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
761
Reaction score
1,309
Edit: This does suggest that the idea of redesignating the LCSs as FFs is dead, since this number carries on directly from the old FF/FFG numbering that ended with USS Ingraham (FFG-61)
And voices everywhere were raised in joy as they declared it a Christmas Miracle. In all seriousness though, the Pentagon is actually doing something that makes sense?! What alternate universe are we living in?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
2,554
Assigning the LCS hulls FF-series numbers would have made a certain degree of sense. (Maybe FFM for multi-mission frigate?) LCS as a designation implies that these are amphibious ships (L types), not combatants.

And they did change the JHSVs to EPF, so there was precedent. It makes a degree of sense to grouping all those connector type ships into one overaching "E for expeditionary" category that includes the EPFs and the expeditionary dock/base ships (ESD/ESB)
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
693
There was some intention to re-number the LCS as FFs, mostly during the period before FFG(X) grew into what it is and a second block of up-armed LCS was planned. My understanding is it died partially to avoid confusion with FFG(X) and partially because a bunch of old SWOs were ready to light their hair on fire if the blessed "Frigate" moniker were bestowed upon the Little Crappy Ship.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
2,554
partially because a bunch of old SWOs were ready to light their hair on fire if the blessed "Frigate" moniker were bestowed upon the Little Crappy Ship.

And here we see why Surface Warfare always gets the short end of the stick. If they were ready to light someone else's hair on fire, people would pay more attention... :)
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
546
Reaction score
747
There was some intention to re-number the LCS as FFs, mostly during the period before FFG(X) grew into what it is and a second block of up-armed LCS was planned. My understanding is it died partially to avoid confusion with FFG(X) and partially because a bunch of old SWOs were ready to light their hair on fire if the blessed "Frigate" moniker were bestowed upon the Little Crappy Ship.
So is the FF and Small Surface Combatant refit plan truly dead, or just in a budgetary black hole?
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
693
There was some intention to re-number the LCS as FFs, mostly during the period before FFG(X) grew into what it is and a second block of up-armed LCS was planned. My understanding is it died partially to avoid confusion with FFG(X) and partially because a bunch of old SWOs were ready to light their hair on fire if the blessed "Frigate" moniker were bestowed upon the Little Crappy Ship.
So is the FF and Small Surface Combatant refit plan truly dead, or just in a budgetary black hole?
FF is dead, or rather it grew into what's now going to be the FFG-62s. The refit plans are more nebulous, they'll likely continue to get NSM and TRS-4D as long as the Navy is committed to the classes. But there's growing calls to cut bait with at least some of them and use the money elsewhere.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
1,006
They have to start deploying them in numbers commensurate with the fleet size. Has the Freedom class deployed to Bahrain as was being talked about in the last couple of years? Really no point in spending dollars on enhancements (beyond NSM and completing the current modules) if they aren't going to be out there in rotation as was originally planned.
 

Similar threads

Top