FFG(X)

Jimmo952 said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because starting a second hull when the design isn’t even finalized is stupid, especially as the costs seem to be ballooning.
Iirc they were supposed to be like $8-900m but now they’re all like $1.5b+ iirc an article said the 7th ship was going to be around $1.7-1.8b

Our biggest short coming as a fleet is simply raw numbers. We don’t have the ships to escort our MSC and merchant ships…$1.5-1.8b per hull isn’t going to get us the numbers we need to do that let alone provide ships to fill out battle groups, or do independent missions…
 
It would be so funny if the US and Germany join into a new Frigate programm for the FFGX and F126, now would be the perfect time for that.
 
drwells42 said:
The program was certainly troubled, so I'm not really shocked.

My big question is: What we will build instead? We need new frigates, and we need them 15 years ago.

DRW
Click to expand...
The implication in the USNI article is that there is finally a recognition that given how far NAVSEA standards seem to deviate from (lower) international norms, a ground up design is going to be an easier solution than trying to adapt a non-compliant base design.

That will pretty much rule out any of the existing European designs, even if the Australian and Canadian T26 derivatives have had some NAVSEA input on their combat systems. I don't know enough to comment if Japan or Korea designs directly to NAVSEA standards; assuming they don't, that leaves

-an upgunned LCS along the lines of the SSC plans that preceded FFG-X/62
-the HII patrol frigate concept derived from the USCG Legend class
-the Gibbs and Cox 'International' frigate currently in build for Taiwan
-the Gibbs and Cox 'Evolved Burke' that was bid for the Australian AWD competition

Anything else?
 
Last edited:
Phelan says he wants to build ships faster. How does canceling the Constellation accomplish that? If the design were "good," surely they'd just seek additional shipyards to build more of them. I'm left with a few possibilities: either the design has issues that aren't public, or the Navy no longer wants a mid-tier surface combatant. Are they envisioning a super-high and super-low future mix? Is this the replacement for the Constellation?
1764105392830.png

Anyway, I'm skeptical that the USN has a genuine need for a multimission surface combatant that is less capable than a Constellation. Perhaps there's a way with disaggregated capabilities across multiple classes of low-end ships. Or perhaps they'll claim that unmanned AI ships will solve the problem and that Anduril is the solution. Jesus just kill me now.
 
At least they managed 3 Zumwalt hulls, though the last isn't expected to be commissioned until 2027!

They want small unmanned surface combatants, but how long is it gonna take for them to design the new ship.
 
WatcherZero said:
At least they managed 3 Zumwalt hulls, though the last isn't expected to be commissioned until 2027!

They want small unmanned surface combatants, but how long is it gonna take for them to design the new ship.
Click to expand...
It's gonna take long enough they might as well have continued with the Constellation program.

The USN is giving the Indian military a run for the title of "most incompetent procurement".
 
VishnuOsiris said:
Reading between the lines, my impression is drones, drones and more drones. It's drones all the way down, whether anyone likes it or not. There are too many positions that need to be played.
Click to expand...

There are some very cool USV ideas from 8 years ago. Shame they didn't pursue them at the time.

MihoshiK said:
It's gonna take long enough they might as well have continued with the Constellation program.

The USN is giving the Indian military a run for the title of "most incompetent procurement".
Click to expand...

I know of a certain Canadian who made this diagnosis about 12 years ago.
 
bobthemonkey said:
The implication in the USNI article is that there is finally a recognition that given how far NAVSEA standards seem to deviate from (lower) international norms, a ground up design is going to be an easier solution than trying to adapt a non-compliant base design.

That will pretty much rule out any of the existing European designs, even if the Australian and Canadian T26 derivatives have had some NAVSEA input on their combat systems. I don't know enough to comment if Japan or Korea designs directly to NAVSEA standards; assuming they don't, that leaves

-an upgunned LCS along the lines of the SSC plans that preceded FFG-X/62
-the HII patrol frigate concept derived from the USCG Legend class
-the Gibbs and Cox 'International' frigate currently in build for Taiwan
-the Gibbs and Cox 'Evolved Burke' that was bid for the Australian AWD competition

Anything else?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd trust an LCS derivative. The other three (HII PF4921, G&C International Frigate, G&C Evolved Burke) are probably more worthy of discussion. We should probably discuss the advantages & disadvantages of each. This is the place....

DRW
 
Aegrotare said:
It would be so funny if the US and Germany join into a new Frigate programm for the FFGX and F126, now would be the perfect time for that.
Click to expand...
2 industries known for mismanagement and cost overrun in a multi national program, what could go wrong....

also f126 is an entirely different class (burke size at least) from navy's frigate need.
 
Not gonna lie, an enlarged LCS-1 with less engines would likely work. (no 40-knot requirement, only "must keep up with a carrier")
 
bobthemonkey said:
The implication in the USNI article is that there is finally a recognition that given how far NAVSEA standards seem to deviate from (lower) international norms, a ground up design is going to be an easier solution than trying to adapt a non-compliant base design.
Click to expand...
Maybe the problem is with the NAVSEA standards?
bobthemonkey said:
That will pretty much rule out any of the existing European designs, even if the Australian and Canadian T26 derivatives have had some NAVSEA input on their combat systems. I don't know enough to comment if Japan or Korea designs directly to NAVSEA standards; assuming they don't, that leaves
Click to expand...
I'd guess Japan's ships are designed to the highest standards but I don't know how that compares to NAVSEA. If I had to pick a jack of all trades ship right now it would be the improved Mogami class.
 
Desertfox said:
Are the Coast-guard Cutters built to NAVSEA standards?
Click to expand...
No, the coasties build to their own standard which is broadly comparable to European practice. European designs for the Icebreakers, fast cutters, and the OPC didn't need anything like the work the Frigate needed.
 
What are they going to do now lmao??? Canceled for what? What ship can be produced right now (as in today) that can make up for all of the money wasted on this program? Why bother canceling it if you don't have something available right now?

What a joke!
 
Moose said:
NAVSEA standards are what you want when you're under fire. Like SUBSAFE, they're deliberately a pain in the ass to ensure they save your butt.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good idea. Living sailors tend to be more productive.;)

Norman Polmar says we should roll the dice more like the Russians. That’s Ok, Norm.
 
None of this adds up
We still need frigates, there’s no near-term alternative. The FREMM design was undoubtedly the best option from the FFG(X) program, and nothing we build domestically can meet the program requirements. This niche isn’t going away anytime soon.
The most frequent criticism of the program (and justification for cancellation) has been redesign work and delays, which they are intending to complete then just void the program. Further, the fact we’re still procuring 2/6 hulls shows NAVSEA is confident the design will be completed.
They’re trying to save money, but are introducing another orphan class. Sustainment costs will increase exponentially.
They’re trying to increase shipbuilding rates, but this move was seemingly done independently of Congress, and after the RFI on the 2nd yard went out.

This is politically motivated from the Executive Branch and Phelan is a spineless yes-man coward for not pushing back. Same shit they pulled with F/A-XX.

I’m hoping the HASC and SASC block it, but I’m not holding out hope. This is a politically motivated disaster.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
With this “administration” and this “president” (I’m fuqqing gagging), it’s safe to assume something very, very shady.
Click to expand...
Not shady, just next level retardation.
Siphoning money for Golden Dome (which they tried doing earlier this year), the mandated 8%(?) budget cuts across the entire USG, slashing DOT&E by 80%, all the talk about shipbuilding but offering nothing but platitudes, cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, etc. Take your pick of justifications. Unfortunately FFG-62 is low hanging fruit for those more interested in optics than statecraft.
 
that_person said:
Not shady, just next level retardation.
Siphoning money for Golden Dome (which they tried doing earlier this year), the mandated 8%(?) budget cuts across the entire USG, slashing DOT&E by 80%, all the talk about shipbuilding but offering nothing but platitudes, cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, etc. Take your pick of justifications. Unfortunately FFG-62 is low hanging fruit for those more interested in optics than statecraft.
Click to expand...
Oh shady alright. Golden Dome? Golden Pockets for contracts that will grow and grow for anyone who ever winked at that cocksukker.

Defense budget didn’t shrink 8%. They just moved stuff to friends.
 
that_person said:
The most frequent criticism of the program (and justification for cancellation) has been redesign work and delays, which they are intending to complete then just void the program. Further, the fact we’re still procuring 2/6 hulls shows NAVSEA is confident the design will be completed.
Click to expand...
This is the big issue for me. Are the ships going to work? Will they be seaworthy and will they be able to conduct any missions? Yes, that's why 2 will be built?

Then why not build more? Who knows. Maybe the ships won't actually be seaworthy and will be mothballed. If that's the case and this is just an industrial base program at this point, then it might be preferable to let the shipyard build a few Heritage-class cutters.
 
joshjosh said:
Are the ships going to work? Will they be seaworthy and will they be able to conduct any missions? Yes, that's why 2 will be built?
Click to expand...
Yes, or else the NAVSEA Ship Design Manager and FMM will be held criminally responsible. They wouldn’t be continuing production of the two hulls if the design requirements are physically impossible.

joshjosh said:
Yes, that's why 2 will be built?
Click to expand...
Precisely why none of this makes sense and is very clearly politically motivated.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom