FFG(X)

Cordy said:
Captain Kevin Smith PEO of FFG(X) at SNA 2022 emphasized it was frigate and not a destroyer and its primary role was escort / ASW.
Smith later promoted to Admiral but recently fired in May

Click to expand...

The Navy has also said they want a ship capable of independent operations.

Thats not possible in the modern age without pretty good air defense.

In a time when drones and anti-ship cruise missiles proliferate, you can't escort much without decent air defense.

The ship is designed to carry 16 antiship missile.

It is very much a multi mission ship.
 
Jimmo952 said:
The Navy has also said they want a ship capable of independent operations.

Thats not possible in the modern age without pretty good air defense.

In a time when drones and anti-ship cruise missiles proliferate, you can't escort much without decent air defense.

The ship is designed to carry 16 antiship missile.

It is very much a multi mission ship.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree, but its a frigate not a destroyer, though it will have a first class Thales sonar, the CAPATAS 4 VDS, but its radar the SPY-6(V)3 which sure is very capable radar but has only ~18% size/capability of the SPY-6(V)1 of the Burkes Flt III measured by the number of RMAs, which to me points to the priority of ASW.
 
Cordy said:
Don't disagree, but its a frigate not a destroyer, though it will have a first class Thales sonar, the CAPATAS 4 VDS, but its radar the SPY-6(V)3 which sure is very capable radar but has only ~18% size/capability of the SPY-6(V)1 of the Burkes Flt III measured by the number of RMAs, which to me points to the priority of ASW.
Click to expand...

In 2025, what's the difference between a frigate and a destroyer?

The Navy said the FFGX will have the capabilities of a Burke Flight 1 but with less capacity.

I doubt we will see dedicated ASW-only frigates being produced by the US in the future. Maybe ASW-focused USVs???

With FFGX, the Navy seems to have been going for a balanced design with decent capabilities in ASW, anti-surface and anti-air.

Once again, they wanted a ship that could operate independently with a decent chance of survival.

They thought they could do this for a decent price and aggressive timeline by using an existing hull.

That part obviously did not work out.
 
Jimmo952 said:
In 2025, what's the difference between a frigate and a destroyer?
Click to expand...
In modern times, displacement/size is the only relevant metric between a frigate, destroyer, cruiser.
Though there are still some cases of dedicated frigates for one role only, while almost all modern day destroyers and cruisers are multi mission ships, even if some lean More towards one role( air defense destroyers for example.)
 
mokahete said:
In modern times, displacement/size is the only relevant metric between a frigate, destroyer, cruiser.
Though there are still some cases of dedicated frigates for one role only, while almost all modern day destroyers and cruisers are multi mission ships, even if some lean More towards one role( air defense destroyers for example.)
Click to expand...

I understand. My point is, the lines between the two are increasingly blurred.

The difference between high-end frigate and a destroyer isn't much.

The difference between a heavy corvette and a light frigate isn't much.
 
Depends in part on whether you are using the classical pre-World War II definition of a Frigate (ship of the line) or the post-WWII/Cold War one (cheap expendable escort vessel for convoys and task forces). Americans sometimes referred to the former during the 20th Century as Destroyer Escorts, especially during the Cold War in order to try to avoid confusion with the other kind of frigate. The pre-Cruiser Panic Virginia-class DLGN was a good example of this.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
Depends in part on whether you are using the classical pre-World War II definition of a Frigate (ship of the line) or the post-WWII/Cold War one (cheap expendable escort vessel for convoys and task forces). Americans sometimes referred to the former during the 20th Century as Destroyer Escorts, especially during the Cold War in order to try to avoid confusion with the other kind of frigate. The pre-Cruiser Panic Virginia-class DLGN was a good example of this.
Click to expand...

I understand but I think we are now a long ways from the pre-war definitions. We have even moved on from cold-war definitions. What is called what seems to be increasingly blurred.

I know there are others that feel stronger about it.

At the end of the day, the capabilities are much more important than the names.
 
If I said it once I've done so hunderds of times.

Ship Classification been dead since the London Treaty and honestly has stop meaning anything these days thanks to tech. It largely decided by what gets the design past the Beancounters.

With everything a ship expected to face peer combat needs to have and do, see the talk of adding fucking Tomahawks to the Constellation or the Burke multihat wearing self, saying it does X so is Y mean squat these days.

Cause modern tech has allow a design to do 5 different things very well, See the Burke being a Solid Performer in ADA, ASW, ASUW, Land Attack, and now BMD thanks to a flexible weapon and sensor system its is built around.

Aegis, MK41 and SPY1/6 is so flexible and can be put on so many sizes thanks to modern tech doing what need Server rooms in the 1990s to do with a Desktop size system mean so long as you are willing to pay the Price for those 3.

And thats the BIG one, there are multiple similar performing scalable systems out there these days. Some do small size better others do big size better.

So honestly Weapon spec should not decide what the ship is, but the other specs, like range and endurance should as well as its expected role in the fleet.


Cause you can have a Ship that is very flexible down to 5000 tons at only the cost of losing Cell count and radar power output. Same for the Opposite side like how the Zumwalts are just as good at ADA, ASW, and ASUW as a Burke despite everyone calling them one trick ponys of NGFS. Thanks because its sensors are just as good and can take all the gear and weapons the Burke has. Plus needing less crew to do it since the thing is design with the idea you can remote control a computer and trust it to do it things automatically so does not need a babysitter with it 24/7 like a Burke does. The Crew in a Zumwalt CIC can do everything to fight the ship as well as double the number of crew a Burke needs who are spread out across the hull due to that. Like you don't need anyone in the Zumwalt engine room to watch gauges or tinkle with the engines, all that can by done in the CIC by the throttleman. And it doesn't even need to be in the CIC, you can set up in the Hanger if needed and still fight the ship in 70 percent capability due to how network it is. Unless the Engine room eats a missile, which no engineer is fixing, it insane what a semi modern design can do despite being a "One Trick NGFS Tub" over a design not even 15 years younger known for being a Flexibility Beast.
 
I do have a problem with the cell count of the Constellation. I know it's been discussed ad nausem, but let's look at the numbers. The CBO shipbuilding report from January 2025 expects the FFG-62 to cost $1.4B per, and the Flt III Burke $2.7 per. That makes the Constellation 52% the cost of a Burke, but with only 33% of the cell count. A 2019 report from the Navy predicts that increasing cell count to 48 cells would cost an additional $16 to $24 million per ship. Let's assume the Navy is lowballing as always, and put the cost at $48M per ship. Increasing cell count to 48 cells would then give us a ship with 50% the cells of a Burke at 54% the cost of a Burke. That looks a lot more attractive on paper. And yes, I know that we have trouble filling all the cells as it is, but that's a separate issue that can be solved separately (cheaper missiles, bigger budgets), only possible if the ships are fitted with 48 cells from the beginning. Assuming the class is actually built and a Flt II class as well, I would be surprised if the Flt II doesn't increase the cell count.
 
Cordy said:
Captain Kevin Smith PEO of FFG(X) at SNA 2022 emphasized it was frigate and not a destroyer and its primary role was escort / ASW.
Smith later promoted to Admiral but recently fired in May

Click to expand...
FFG vs DDG is a distinction without a difference.

I forget if it’s France or Italy, but one of them doesn’t even use the classification of destroyer because it’s technically a shortening of torpedo boat destroyer, and their top end ships are not intended to fight torpedo/missile boats as their main function. That means they could have a 10k ton multi-role ship and it would still be a frigate.

There’s literally no significant difference between a frigate and a destroyer in any navy. The terms are 100% completely interchangeable.
 
mokahete said:
In modern times, displacement/size is the only relevant metric between a frigate, destroyer, cruiser.
Though there are still some cases of dedicated frigates for one role only, while almost all modern day destroyers and cruisers are multi mission ships, even if some lean More towards one role( air defense destroyers for example.)
Click to expand...
If displacement is the difference maker what’s the max a frigate can weigh?

Constellation class is coming in weighing no more than 1000 tons less than a flight I burke…so either it’s displacement makes it a destroyer, or you’re ’down grading’ FI Burkes to frigates.

Likewise what’s the upper limit of displacement for a destroyer? FIII Burkes outweigh Ticos, so are Ticos down graded to destroyers, or are FIIIs upgraded to cruisers? How does it even work to have a single class of ship that could qualify as three different classifications?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
If displacement is the difference maker what’s the max a frigate can weigh?

Constellation class is coming in weighing no more than 1000 tons less than a flight I burke…so either it’s displacement makes it a destroyer, or you’re ’down grading’ FI Burkes to frigates.

Likewise what’s the upper limit of displacement for a destroyer? FIII Burkes outweigh Ticos, so are Ticos down graded to destroyers, or are FIIIs upgraded to cruisers? How does it even work to have a single class of ship that could qualify as three different classifications?
Click to expand...
If I judge using my own criteria, then in current times.
"General" categorization.

1-3k tons:- corvette sized ship
3-6k:-frigate sized ship
6-10k:- destroyer size ship.
10k+:- cruiser sized ship.

So yeah, I personally do consider constellation class to be modern destroyer sized vessel, regardless of what US navy categorize it as.
 
mokahete said:
If I judge using my own criteria, then in current times.
"General" categorization.

1-3k tons:- corvette sized ship
3-6k:-frigate sized ship
6-10k:- destroyer size ship.
10k+:- cruiser sized ship.

So yeah, I personally do consider constellation class to be modern destroyer sized vessel, regardless of what US navy categorize it as.
Click to expand...
10k+ ships are destroyer-sized ships these days, Cruisers effectively don't exist (even the Ticonderogas and all of the CGNs sans Long Beach were originally classified as destroyer type ships). There's still some differences in role which dictate what a ship is called, even if modern ASW combatants have increasingly capable AAW suites.
 
maybe logic behind classification used today(?):
Cruiser: Design for stay offshore long time and do many things independently.

Destroyer: Design for high capacity during high tension battle,but not too suit for long sailing
(poor living condition/limited fuel capacity/hard to access some machine underway/...)

Frigate:Affordable design for stay offshore long time,with somehow limited capacity.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
There’s literally no significant difference between a frigate and a destroyer in any navy. The terms are 100% completely interchangeable.
Click to expand...
The RN uses destroyer for AAW platforms, frigate for ASW/General Purpose platforms, so yes, there is a difference in some navies.
 
mokahete said:
If I judge using my own criteria, then in current times.
"General" categorization.

1-3k tons:- corvette sized ship
3-6k:-frigate sized ship
6-10k:- destroyer size ship.
10k+:- cruiser sized ship.

So yeah, I personally do consider constellation class to be modern destroyer sized vessel, regardless of what US navy categorize it as.
Click to expand...
That would mean the Ticos aren’t cruisers.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
That would mean the Ticos aren’t cruisers.
Click to expand...
They arent.

They were ment to be the cheap destroyer to either a conventional or nuclear cruiser half again to twice its weight.

And was called the DDG47 literally til 24 hours before launch.
 
Firefinder said:
They arent.

They were ment to be the cheap destroyer to either a conventional or nuclear cruiser half again to twice its weight.

And was called the DDG47 literally til 24 hours before launch.
Click to expand...
Do you have sources for that?

Slava also wouldn’t classify as a cruiser either…

Bottom line tonnage is a 100% arbitrary method of classification. Connies are destroyer tonnage by most any way you look at it, with ‘frigate’ levels of armament.

Capabilities should be the real factor to considered.
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
Do you have sources for that?
Click to expand...
Electric Greyhounds, Friedman, USN Archives, Plankowners, and dozens of others up to including AEGIS sale docs.

Like this isn't deep lore stuff, but something you can find pretty easy with a simple google search of the class.


Large part of the Ticos was to just FINALLY get the AEGIS system out to sea in same way after like 10 plus years of it sitting around.
 
Firefinder said:
Electric Greyhounds, Friedman, USN Archives, Plankowners, and dozens of others up to including AEGIS sale docs.

Like this isn't deep lore stuff, but something you can find pretty easy with a simple google search of the class.


Large part of the Ticos was to just FINALLY get the AEGIS system out to sea in same way after like 10 plus years of it sitting around.
Click to expand...
This is the first I’ve heard of it in about 20 years of looking into naval history, including dealing with some veterans from that period…it’s pretty deep lore and is a lot more than a simple google search.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
That would mean the Ticos aren’t cruisers.
Click to expand...
They were big enough in the past.
Now the size of ships have gone up, and they are now a large destroyer size vessel, almost at reaching the threshold to be modern cruise size, almost.
 
mokahete said:
They were big enough in the past.
Now the size of ships have gone up, and they are now a large destroyer size vessel, almost at reaching the threshold to be modern cruise size, almost.
Click to expand...
Not even close…9800 tons, the most modern destroyer designs in service are 15k tons and 13k tons, so a cruiser assuming the term continues to mean ship larger than destroyer would need to nearly twice the displacement of a Tico to set themselves apart from modern destroyer designs.

I’d say the Ticos tonnage put them much closer to the same weight class as the Connies than a theoretical new cruiser.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
This is the first I’ve heard of it in about 20 years of looking into naval history, including dealing with some veterans from that period…it’s pretty deep lore and is a lot more than a simple google search.
Click to expand...
You apperantly didn't look very deep since it literally on the Wiki page man, I remember hearing bout in like 09 when I first start really look into Naval ships at 16. Plus it on every bit of information on them circle the era. It was a pretty big deal at the time cause there was alot of well...

Same ass Hoho as the FFG is havign here bout it being not enough to be a CG or over gun type for a CG the navy keep changing it it will never be launch type of bullshit. Cause they are literally a stretch Spruance Class ASW destroyer with AEGIS stuck on it and barely weight much more than 1000 tons over those destroyers.

Literally can just replace Constetallation with Ticonderoga and you basically have the same damn articles...

History rhythms something something I forgot.
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
Not even close…9800 tons, the most modern destroyer designs in service are 15k tons and 13k tons, so a cruiser assuming the term continues to mean ship larger than destroyer would need to nearly twice the displacement of a Tico to set themselves apart from modern destroyer designs.

I’d say the Ticos tonnage put them much closer to the same weight class as the Connies than a theoretical new cruiser.
Click to expand...
Modern " destroyers" 15k tons, 13ktons.

I consider them to be cruisers tho.

For me a destroyer is ships like.
Type 45 of Royal navy.
Chinese type 052D.
Indian Kolkata class.

Japanese, kongo, atagi, Maya class ships to be large destroyers/almost cruiser sized ships/ barely cruisers.
Basically transitional size between destroyer and cruiser.
 
If a type 055 is not a cruiser then nothing is, yet the 055 is officially listed as a destroyer
 
joshjosh said:
If a type 055 is not a cruiser then nothing is, yet the 055 is officially listed as a destroyer
Click to expand...
I consider it a cruiser
Every navy has different criteria on how they classify their ships, nothing universal.

I have my own criteria, to simplify things based on global trends.
 
mokahete said:
It's basically size, for now.
Post in thread 'FFG(X)' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ffg-x.33649/post-801362
Click to expand...
I believe that you're much better off using mission and capabilities, not size.

Frigate: small ship intended for operations off by itself, commerce protection, anti-piracy missions, etc.
Destroyer: small ship intended for supporting fleet elements.
Cruiser: large ship intended for either operations off by itself (or as the command ship for operations not needing battleships) or for supporting fleet elements.
battleship: what it says on the tin, the primary fighting ship of the fleet. (Which for the current time means carriers, but that's a separate discussion)
 
Any way, back on topic.
The Connie’s are much less than ideal because they cost roughly 3/4 of a burke, with 1/3 of the VLS cells, but at least they carry 16 NSM.

For the cost it makes more sense to invest 1/4 more into shipbuilding budget and just build more Burkes, replacing the ten oldest Burkes saving money on maintenance, and still growing the fleet.

When it’s time to bring DDG(X) online replace the Ticos 1:1, we need to then restart the FFG(X) program from the beginning and find a way to build a ship that’s significantly cheaper.
LCSes are already getting upgraded radar, so MMSC would make the most sense there imho. Or go back to the FREMM and simply build a French FREMM but with SPY radar and a mk110 on the bow. One or the other.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Or go back to the FREMM and simply build a French FREMM but with SPY radar and a mk110 on the bow.
Click to expand...
So just keep building the Constellation.

Cause that's the Constellation you are describing.

50 percent of the issues is from trying to stick a SPY hat on a FREMM.

That was NEVER going to be an Easy Modification no matter who or what said it would be.

Cause you basically had to redesign all the guts to fit that system on its own before adding in the Damcon standards differences.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Honestly the daegu class might not have been a bad option. Tbh
Already has an S band radar (though rotating) admittedly not a radar nerd, but I assume since SPY is also an S band, it’s likely a solid air search.
Click to expand...
If you're going to change the radar from SPY-1, just buy a standard FREMM, or FREDA if you want the AAW-optimised version (which still has a towed array).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom