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

Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
168
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"In a Blow to LCS, the US Navy Finally Admits it Needs a Real Frigate"
by Joseph Trevithick

July 10, 2017

Source:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12324/in-a-blow-to-lcs-the-us-navy-finally-admits-it-needs-a-real-frigate
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
Navantia and Bath Iron Works team to meet USN FFG(X) requirement



Navantia of Spain has teamed with US shipbuilder General Dynamics Bath Iron Works to offer a joint solution to the US Navy’s (USN) future guided missile frigate requirement (FFG[X]).

The alliance was announced on 23 November.

“We are delighted to collaborate with Bath Iron Works on the FFG(X) programme,” Navantia President Esteban Garcia Vilasanchez said in a statement.

“Our alliance began in the 1980s when we worked together to bring the design of the FFG Oliver Hardy Perry / Santa Maria to Spain.”

The agreement foresees an offer based on evolved designs of the AEGIS-equipped family of F-100 frigates of Navantia, which were selected by The Royal Australian Navy to meet its Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) requirement and the Royal Norwegian Navy (which introduced the design as the Fridtjof Nansen class).

Lockheed Martin and Navantia renewed a 20-year accord relating to AEGIS co-operation in October this year.

The USN issued a request for proposals (RFP) on 7 November in relation to the FFG(X) programme. A design is sought based on an existing ship that has been through production.

The frigate is seen as a successor to the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) programme, although the US Congressional Research Service reported in October that the “FFG(X) design will likely be larger in terms of displacement [and] more heavily armed.”
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Cost: F101/4 €453m (~US$600m) each F105 €834m (~US$1.1bn)

Isn't that serious overkill for a frigate we want to buy in not insignificant numbers? That'd be expensive even just off the shelf, never mind the added costs of making it a USN ship and building it in the US.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
30
sferrin said:
Cost: F101/4 €453m (~US$600m) each F105 €834m (~US$1.1bn)

Isn't that serious overkill for a frigate we want to buy in not insignificant numbers? That'd be expensive even just off the shelf, never mind the added costs of making it a USN ship and building it in the US.
Word I'm seeing this last little while is that they're "hoping" for less than $1bn sail-away cost.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
901
Reaction score
9
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

Some interesting insights re shipbuilding costs.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
JFC Fuller said:
sferrin said:
Cost: F101/4 €453m (~US$600m) each F105 €834m (~US$1.1bn)

Isn't that serious overkill for a frigate we want to buy in not insignificant numbers? That'd be expensive even just off the shelf, never mind the added costs of making it a USN ship and building it in the US.
F-105 is, in many respects, a small DDG51- no reason it should be especially cheap. F-105 is a high-end destroyer in Europe.
Exactly my point. How do they think using something based on that, and trying to switch production to the US to boot, as well as modify it to meet USN requirements, is going to be cheap enough to build in large numbers? If all they're talking about is using the hull that's another matter I suppose, but still likely more expensive than a design built in the US, to USN standards, from the get go.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
901
Reaction score
9
Some interesting points about selecting and building (in a different shipyard) from a Parent design. This is from the Canadian document referenced above relating the problems the Australians encountered.

"
Using an existing design: A cautionary tale - Australia’s Hobart-class destroyer


National Defence has decided to build an existing surface combatant design to reduce both time and cost. Though this can be the case, it does not always work out as planned, as was discovered by Australia with its Hobart-class destroyer.

Australia selected the Spanish F100 or Alvaro de Bazan-class frigate as its design for the Hobart. Australia’s motivation for selecting the F100 was the same as that of National Defence for selecting an existing design: to save time and money rather than pursuing a new design.

Unfortunately, Australia has encountered numerous problems. The project is expected to be at least 15 per cent over budget ($9.2 billion AUS versus the original budget of $8.0 billion AUS) and 2 1/2 years late for the first ship (delayed from December 2014 to June 2017).68 With the winning design selected in June 2007, it will be 10 years between design selection and commissioning of the first ship.

Of the numerous problems Australia has encountered in building the Hobart, some are clearly not applicable to the CSC (multiple shipyard building the blocks and DND playing multiple roles – customer, supplier and partner).

For the CSC, Irving shipyards in Halifax is the only entity building the ships, DND’s only role is that of the customer; Irving is the prime contractor and it is responsible for awarding the subcontracts for the design and modifications.

Nevertheless, there are three areas in which Canada has the potential to encounter problems similar to those of Australia’s: underestimating the risks of the Canadian specific redesign; a shipyard with no warship construction experience; and the potential for sub-standard technology transfer from the original ship designer/builder to Irving.

Underestimating the effort required to make changes to an existing warship design is not surprising when given some thought. Warships are not like ice breakers or patrol ships; they are very dense with complicated interactions among all the systems.

The word “dense” in this context refers to how jam-packed the ship is with equipment, cabling, redundancy requirements, water and smoke tight compartments, and extra layers of protection. Warships don’t generally have extra space to easily add stuff, though a good ship design does provide some displacement margin to add equipment during the lifetime of the ship.

Nevertheless, the effort to make a design change to a warship is not linear: changing one item, function or feature will necessarily have multiple knock-on changes multiplying the cost and effort of the change. This is a risk that is often underestimated when making changes to the design that Canada eventually selects.
The second cost-increasing problem Canada will encounter is the lack of experience in building warships, which is not the same as building ice breakers or patrol ships. Warships are considerably more complicated to build and integrate. With this in mind, the learning curve for a shipyard that has not had previous experience building warships will be steep with a higher cost for the first unit.

As described above, this steep learning curve will result in higher construction costs (for at least the first eight ships) than those incurred by a shipyard that has previous warship construction experience.
The third area in which Canada is likely to see increased costs is the technology transfer between the original shipyard and Canada. It is difficult to capture all the nuances of building a ship through digital data files. There is organic knowledge that a shipyard develops during the construction process that is not captured in the design files.

One last item is to understand the cost premium Australia is paying to build the Hobart-class ships itself.74 For an estimated total budget of $9.2 billion AUS, Australia will acquire three destroyers at an average cost of $3.07 billion AUS each (includes all fixed costs).

In comparison, the Arleigh Burke flight IIA is 50 per cent larger than the Hobart and cost $1.9 billion in FY2010 with a 2017 delivery date.

Currently, the American dollar is worth 1.33 Australian dollars. The following calculations are all in billions of dollars.

1. Convert Aleigh Burke cost to Australian: $1.9 US x 1.33 = $2.53 AUS
2. Apply US foreign military sales surcharge: $2.53 x 1.047 = $2.65 AUS
3. Multiply by three to get the average cost of three ships including all costs: $2.65 x 3 = $7.95 AUS
4. Extra Australia has paid for three ships that are two-thirds the size of the price of an Arleigh Burke: $9.2 – $7.95 = $1.25 billion AUS

Consequently, this is 16 per cent higher for three smaller ships rather than just buying an Arleigh Burke from the United States.

As the previous endnote discusses, the above comparison is to the cost of an Arleigh Burke second in the learning curve. If the comparison was to the marginal cost of the ninth ship (that is, end of learning curve), it is estimated that the Arleigh Burkes would cost $1.43 billion US each.

Redoing the previous calculations:

1. Convert Aleigh Burke cost to Australian: $1.43 US x 1.33 = $1.90 AUS
2. Apply US foreign military sales surcharge: $1.90 x 1.047 = $1.99 AUS
3. Multiply by three for three ships: $1.99 x 3 = $5.97 AUS
4. Extra Australia has paid for three ships that are two-thirds the size of the price of an Arleigh Burke: $9.2 – $5.97 = $3.23 billion AUS

So, using the estimated ninth ship marginal cost, Australia will pay $3.23 billion AUS, or 54 per cent, more for ships two-thirds the size.
"

==========

With the
1. effort put into the the Saudi Multi-Mission Surface Combatant, and
2. the "Parent" design (afloat) requirement,
3. the similarity between the Key Threshold attributes listed in the RFI and the MMSC, and
4. the similarity between the Major Weapons Systems listed in the RFI and the MMSC, and
5. the fact that the Saudi's are paying for at least the first four MMSC's on the way to the nine estimated to complete the labor learning curve,
it seems unlikely that any other solution will do.

This open RFI has more to do with putting pressure on pricing than an actual competition.

It will be interesting to see how quickly they can take cost out of the manufacturing process. With only 10-15 years of production it doesn't have much chance to get "DDG efficient". If it's as capable as they make out then perhaps it would make sense to encourage additional quantities.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
172
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/16/report-congress-u-s-navy-frigate-ffgx-program-3

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2018/09/26/ffgx-should-we-follow-the-usafs-lead
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
30
Grey Havoc said:
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/16/report-congress-u-s-navy-frigate-ffgx-program-3

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2018/09/26/ffgx-should-we-follow-the-usafs-lead
Salamander's headline is perhaps less effective a few days after USAF picked a clean-sheet design for T-X over existing designs largely on the grounds that it was better suited and more affordable. I respect his opinion, but after decades of demanding the Navy build a European-style Frigate I think he's become overly dismissive of the potential for US shipyards to put together a competitive proposal. I also don't find his "you just don't like it because its foreign!" response, our ships and aircraft use a number of systems developed outside the US, and both LCS designs started with "off the shelf" foreign shipyard hulls before being made into mess systems they are today.
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
It's a bit curious to me why ships like the FREMM and F100, which are fairly massive and well armed/outfitted, are being considered, but smaller foreign designs like Asashi or Fridtjof Nansen seem to have been ignored. Were these proposed by any contractors at any point during FFG(X) run up, or is the USN only considering in production/in service designs rather than ultra-modern or out-of-production one? Asashi in particular seems to be well suited to the constraints of FFG(X), with a modest armament comparable to F100-class, but a superior combat system, and a supposed cost of less than a billion USD.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Kat Tsun said:
It's a bit curious to me why ships like the FREMM and F100, which are fairly massive and well armed/outfitted, are being considered, but smaller foreign designs like Asashi or Fridtjof Nansen seem to have been ignored. Were these proposed by any contractors at any point during FFG(X) run up, or is the USN only considering in production/in service designs rather than ultra-modern or out-of-production one? Asashi in particular seems to be well suited to the constraints of FFG(X), with a modest armament comparable to F100-class, but a superior combat system, and a supposed cost of less than a billion USD.
They are only considering designs proposed by industry. And it would appear that no industry group offered the designs you mention. (Navantia and GD presumably looked at both the F85 Fridtjof Nansen and F100 Alvaro de Bazan and decided that the larger ship was more suitable.)

Notice that the only parts of the parent designs that are being used "as is" are basically hull and mechanical systems. The FFG(X) requirements actually call out a specific combat system (COMBATSS-21), radar (EASR), and other systems to be provided as Government-Furnished Equipment. So all the competitors will be including that outfit, rather than the original combat systems in the parent designs. Even if someone had wanted to offer the Asahi combat system with Ga, for example, that would not be a responsive bid.

Edit: I wanted to add that the combat system spec'd for FFG(X) is definitely more sophisticated than the combat systems in most of the parent designs being proposed. EASR is a gallium nitride (GaN) radar with a similar technology base to the FCS-3A in the Asahi class, for example. So don't assume that the US Navy is getting an old technology ship here, they're just trying to get something with a relative known quantity hull and mechanical systems to carry a modern combat system.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
https://news.usni.org/2019/01/22/navy-squeezing-costs-ffgx-program-requirements-solidify

Embedded in this story is a slide deck showing the combat system requirements for FFG(X).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Hmmm. No Tomahawk, LRASM, Harpoon or even NSM. Lame.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
30
TomS said:
https://news.usni.org/2019/01/22/navy-squeezing-costs-ffgx-program-requirements-solidify

Embedded in this story is a slide deck showing the combat system requirements for FFG(X).
That slide deck also says "mature designs" but not explicitly "parent hull/design," which is interesting given that Austal's LCS-based design has changed pretty dramatically, HII still hasn't shown their hand, and now LockMart is teasing/hinting at a more dramatic departure from their base LCS design for their FFG(X) offering.

Combined with referring to it as "multi-mission" rather than some variant of "mission-tailored" language, and the rather beefy objective weapons load, the final pitches are going to be pretty interesting.


sferrin said:
Hmmm. No Tomahawk, LRASM, Harpoon or even NSM. Lame.
SUW
OTH fire control system
OTH 2x4(T)/ 2x8(obj)

Current OTH = Naval Strike Missile, so the threshold requirement is 8 NSM and objective is 16.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
sferrin said:
Hmmm. No Tomahawk, LRASM, Harpoon or even NSM. Lame.
The SUW section requires at least 2x4 (Threshold; 2x8 Objective) Over-The-Horizon missiles (aka NSM).
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Moose said:
That slide deck also says "mature designs" but not explicitly "parent hull/design," which is interesting given that Austal's LCS-based design has changed pretty dramatically, HII still hasn't shown their hand, and now LockMart is teasing/hinting at a more dramatic departure from their base LCS design for their FFG(X) offering.
Hmm. I feel like the hull may well be related to LCS-1 -- it's still got the large and very squared off flight deck that extends all the way aft. But the superstructure is really different, much more like a conventional destroyer with a midships break and a very prominent raked tripod mast. It may well owe something to Gibbs & Cox and their older International Frigate (which was considered for the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer).
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
30
TomS said:
Moose said:
That slide deck also says "mature designs" but not explicitly "parent hull/design," which is interesting given that Austal's LCS-based design has changed pretty dramatically, HII still hasn't shown their hand, and now LockMart is teasing/hinting at a more dramatic departure from their base LCS design for their FFG(X) offering.
Hmm. I feel like the hull may well be related to LCS-1 -- it's still got the large and very squared off flight deck that extends all the way aft. But the superstructure is really different, much more like a conventional destroyer with a midships break and a very prominent raked tripod mast. It may well owe something to Gibbs & Cox and their older International Frigate (which was considered for the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer).
The shape and fullness of the bow also look markedly different than LCS-1, I'm trying not too read too much into the silhouette but I definitely wouldn't be shocked if they gave it a more conventional displacement hull to improve ride and efficiency.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Moose said:
TomS said:
Moose said:
That slide deck also says "mature designs" but not explicitly "parent hull/design," which is interesting given that Austal's LCS-based design has changed pretty dramatically, HII still hasn't shown their hand, and now LockMart is teasing/hinting at a more dramatic departure from their base LCS design for their FFG(X) offering.
Hmm. I feel like the hull may well be related to LCS-1 -- it's still got the large and very squared off flight deck that extends all the way aft. But the superstructure is really different, much more like a conventional destroyer with a midships break and a very prominent raked tripod mast. It may well owe something to Gibbs & Cox and their older International Frigate (which was considered for the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer).
The shape and fullness of the bow also look markedly different than LCS-1, I'm trying not too read too much into the silhouette but I definitely wouldn't be shocked if they gave it a more conventional displacement hull to improve ride and efficiency.
Given that the max speed regime is so radically different (26-28kts vs 40 knots), a new hull would certainly make sense for FFG(X). That semi-planning hull only makes any sense if you need to push 40 knots. But at that point, how is it a proven design if they've swapped out the hull, the superstructure, and most of the combat system?

Even the Austal FFG(X) design seems to be stretching the definitions on this. Switching to Diesel/CP props from GT/waterjets is pretty radical. The trimaran hull at least is still usable at lower speed regimes.

PS: I don't think they've replaced the "parent hull" language. The reference to "mature designs" in the slide deck is about the purpose of the FY18 awards: Mature, Reduce, and Identify are all action verbs there. (They use the same construct in the present tense on slide 7: Matures, Reduces, Identifies.)
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
Hmmm. No Tomahawk, LRASM, Harpoon or even NSM. Lame.
The OTH Weapon (NSM) has already been selected for the LCS and the FFG(X) with an objective of 8 missiles per hull.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
bring_it_on said:
sferrin said:
Hmmm. No Tomahawk, LRASM, Harpoon or even NSM. Lame.
The OTH Weapon (NSM) has already been selected for the LCS and the FFG(X) with an objective of 8 missiles per hull.
But one wonders why they didn't mention the possibility of TLAMs or LRASMs in the VLS. Are they Self-Defense Length cells rather than Strike Length? ??? Hell, the new Russian Frigate has cells for 16 Kalibr or Oniks (Brahmos) cruise / antiship missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Gorshkov-class_frigate
 

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
sferrin said:
Hmmm. No Tomahawk, LRASM, Harpoon or even NSM. Lame.
The OTH Weapon (NSM) has already been selected for the LCS and the FFG(X) with an objective of 8 missiles per hull.
But one wonders why they didn't mention the possibility of TLAMs or LRASMs in the VLS. Are they Self-Defense Length cells rather than Strike Length? ???
Clearly not self-defense length because VL ASROC and SM-2 Block IIIC require at least tactical length. And there is no indication that the USN has ever seriously considered adopting tactical-length VLS on US ships.

No mention of TLAM because they probably don't intend to include the Tomahawk mission planning hardware (TTWCS) or associated crew members necessary for TLAM employment. There is no shortage of TLAM shooters around the fleet, so adding that to the frigates would mean extra spending on hardware and manning that the Navy doesn't need.

No mention of LRASM because 1) VL-launched LRASM is not actually a USN program of record right now. 2) It's not clear when the actual program of record (NGLAW) will deliver an antiship capability. 3) NGLAW will probably need the same sort of infrastructure as TLAM, so see above.

OTH/NSM offers plenty of performance for a ship like FFG(X). Seriously, it outranges Harpoon Block I and roughly matches Block II, which should be ample coverage for frigate role. If and when longer-range weapons actually show up in the fleet, there will be plenty of time to consider which ships should carry them.

Excluding weapons like TLAM and LRASM is basically the same as excluding SM-3 (which they also did). There are enough other shooters for those weapons in the fleet that it makes no sense to spend money to add those capabilities to the frigates as well.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
sferrin said:
Hmmm. No Tomahawk, LRASM, Harpoon or even NSM. Lame.
The OTH Weapon (NSM) has already been selected for the LCS and the FFG(X) with an objective of 8 missiles per hull.
But one wonders why they didn't mention the possibility of TLAMs or LRASMs in the VLS. Are they Self-Defense Length cells rather than Strike Length? ??? Hell, the new Russian Frigate has cells for 8 Kalibr or Oniks (Brahmos) cruise / antiship missiles. (Not sure why the two pictures are so different. They're both supposedly members of the same class. ??? )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Gorshkov-class_frigate
Thpse pictures are not the same class. One is a Grigorovich class ship, not a Gorshkov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Grigorovich-class_frigate
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
TomS said:
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
sferrin said:
Hmmm. No Tomahawk, LRASM, Harpoon or even NSM. Lame.
The OTH Weapon (NSM) has already been selected for the LCS and the FFG(X) with an objective of 8 missiles per hull.
But one wonders why they didn't mention the possibility of TLAMs or LRASMs in the VLS. Are they Self-Defense Length cells rather than Strike Length? ??? Hell, the new Russian Frigate has cells for 8 Kalibr or Oniks (Brahmos) cruise / antiship missiles. (Not sure why the two pictures are so different. They're both supposedly members of the same class. ??? )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Gorshkov-class_frigate
Thpse pictures are not the same class. One is a Grigorovich class ship, not a Gorshkov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Grigorovich-class_frigate
Okay, fixed.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Just wanted to revisit this and talk about your main point re armament.

So, the Gorshkov has 16 AShMs, and 32 cells for SAMs. This is actually the same as the objective armament for the FFG(X). The only real difference is that the Russian ship's AShM are heavy, long-range weapons intead of "merely" 100+ mile light antiship weapons. Why? Because the Russian and US navies still have different views on the role of small combatants as offensive assets. The USN sees carrier aircraft still as their primary offensive arm (hence the emphasis on puttling LRASM on Super Hornet rather than surface ships), while the Russians see their destroyers as having a greater offensive role. Which is necessary because otherwise they have one barely operational carrier and a small (but potentially potent) submarine force.

Also, FFG(X) will have a few more capabilities in the surveillance and defensive role that the Gorshkovs lack. They carry both a helicopter and a sizable drone MQ-8C), both towed array and variable depth sonars (Gorshkovs has only the towed part), and a fairly robust torpedo defense capability. And some really robust EW as well, both SEWIP and AOEW on the helicopter (or maybe even the drone).

PS: almost forgot that SM-2MR Block IIIC brings the same high-speed antiship capability as SM-6, just with less range. That's a fair counterpart to the speed of the Russian AShMs.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
TomS said:
Just wanted to revisit this and talk about your main point re armament.

So, the Gorshkov has 16 AShMs, and 32 cells for SAMs. This is actually the same as the objective armament for the FFG(X). The only real difference is that the Russian ship's AShM are heavy, long-range weapons intead of "merely" 100+ mile light antiship weapons. Why? Because the Russian and US navies still have different views on the role of small combatants as offensive assets. The USN sees carrier aircraft still as their primary offensive arm (hence the emphasis on puttling LRASM on Super Hornet rather than surface ships), while the Russians see their destroyers as having a greater offensive role. Which is necessary because otherwise they have one barely operational carrier and a small (but potentially potent) submarine force.

Also, FFG(X) will have a few more capabilities in the surveillance and defensive role that the Gorshkovs lack. They carry both a helicopter and a sizable drone MQ-8C), both towed array and variable depth sonars (Gorshkovs has only the towed part), and a fairly robust torpedo defense capability. And some really robust EW as well, both SEWIP and AOEW on the helicopter (or maybe even the drone).

PS: almost forgot that SM-2MR Block IIIC brings the same high-speed antiship capability as SM-6, just with less range. That's a fair counterpart to the speed of the Russian AShMs.
Where the Russian frigates win out is in the antiship capability. Up to 16 Mach 2.8, 300km range missiles. :eek:
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
sferrin said:
Where the Russian frigates win out is in the antiship capability. Up to 16 Mach 2.8, 300km range missiles. :eek:
Right. But the point is, the Russian sips have those missiles because they serve a different role in the Russian fleet than US frigates (and for that matter, other surface combatants in general) serve in the USN.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Where the Russian frigates win out is in the antiship capability. Up to 16 Mach 2.8, 300km range missiles. :eek:
Right. But the point is, the Russian sips have those missiles because they serve a different role in the Russian fleet than US frigates (and for that matter, other surface combatants in general) serve in the USN.
And I get that but they could be that much more versatile with the capability. Does it really cost that much money to add TLAM capability when the VLS is already there? (A shame there will never be a LRASM-B or RATTLRS to put in them.)
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
sferrin said:
And I get that but they could be that much more versatile with the capability. Does it really cost that much money to add TLAM capability when the VLS is already there? (A shame there will never be a LRASM-B or RATTLRS to put in them.)
I couldn't find an actual unit price per installation, but it definitely isn't trivial. The modern Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System installation on surface combatants is four operator consoles, three electronics equipment cabinets, and some ancillary hardware (Subs make do with one operator console, but presumably lose functionality). A few million dollars per ship for TTWCS electronics would make a noticable difference in the program cost.

And the operating costs are obviously significant too -- four consoles probably means at least four bodies, with the personnel and training costs that go with them. That adds up on a ship that already is supposed to have fairly lean manning and Blue-Gold rotating crews.
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
12
Where the Russian frigates win out is in the antiship capability. Up to 16 Mach 2.8, 300km range missiles. :eek:
If we are talking about P-800 - it's not exactly 300km... More like twice to thrice more (tho probably closer to twice). Plus there is 3M54/14 for AShM and ground strike, and since last part is up to 2500km range, quite possible that 54 is not really restricled by export 300km range.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Where the Russian frigates win out is in the antiship capability. Up to 16 Mach 2.8, 300km range missiles. :eek:
If we are talking about P-800 - it's not exactly 300km... More like twice to thrice more (tho probably closer to twice). Plus
Source? Everything I've seen says the same 300km of Brahmos.
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
12
Source? Everything I've seen says the same 300km of Brahmos.
300km is for Yakhont, export version of Onyx. Same range as one for 3M14, restricted for export(which is, as we know, is not entirely same for domestic). Real range of domestic P-800 is around 600km for easiest trajectory, but some believe that it can be squished to 800km judging by fuel load and possibly new fuel type.
And let's not discuss BrahMos here, please. We are on intelligent polite forum after all.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Source? Everything I've seen says the same 300km of Brahmos.
300km is for Yakhont, export version of Onyx. Same range as one for 3M14, restricted for export(which is, as we know, is not entirely same for domestic). Real range of domestic P-800 is around 600km for easiest trajectory, but some believe that it can be squished to 800km judging by fuel load and possibly new fuel type.
Do you have any sources for the claim of 600km?

And let's not discuss BrahMos here, please. We are on intelligent polite forum after all.
What is this supposed to mean?
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
12
Do you have any sources for the claim of 600km?
Kinda... Most sources in search from "P-800" or "3M55" which are not talking about specifically export version? Which one would you prefer? (Not trolling or anything, geniunely don't know which one will be sufficient for you).
What is this supposed to mean?
Mostly that BrahMos is essentially export version of P-800 with few pieces if indian electronics, including part of seeker, and that's it. All those BrahMos-2/3/4/A are at best mockups and at worst paper. But media backblast is enormous, mostly thanks to indian media. World's best supersonic cruise missile...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Do you have any sources for the claim of 600km?
Kinda... Most sources in search from "P-800" or "3M55" which are not talking about specifically export version? Which one would you prefer? (Not trolling or anything, geniunely don't know which one will be sufficient for you).
One that specifically supports your claim would be sufficient.

Mostly that BrahMos is essentially export version of P-800 with few pieces if indian electronics, including part of seeker, and that's it. All those BrahMos-2/3/4/A are at best mockups and at worst paper. But media backblast is enormous, mostly thanks to indian media. World's best supersonic cruise missile...
But it is in service at the moment. If it's in service, and works, I don't understand the venom.
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
12
One that specifically supports your claim would be sufficient.
Dunno. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/russian-superheavy-nuclear-battlecruiser-being-fitted-with-hypersonic-missiles-s-400s
Fits?
But it is in service at the moment. If it's in service, and works, I don't understand the venom.
It's in service, it works, it has been test launched, and it's essentially P-800 in export complectation which is used by other countries like Syria, Vietnam or Indonesia. Venom is not at missile itself, but at bragging about it.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Technically, it does say what you claim. Is it a reputable site? Looks like a gamer site. Pretty much every reputable site I've seen says 300km and that it doesn't go Mach 3. More like Mach 2.5 at altitude. Which makes sense as those are pretty much what Brahmos gets and they're not THAT different.

It's in service, it works, it has been test launched, and it's essentially P-800 in export complectation which is used by other countries like Syria, Vietnam or Indonesia. Venom is not at missile itself, but at bragging about it.
What's wrong with bragging about it? It is a joint project after all and India did get Brahmos in service before Russia got Yakhont into service.
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
12
Technically, it does say what you claim. Is it a reputable site? Looks like a gamer site. Pretty much every reputable site I've seen says 300km and that it doesn't go Mach 3. More like Mach 2.5 at altitude. Which makes sense as those are pretty much what Brahmos gets and they're not THAT different.
TBH I don't know a damn about that site) Just one of the first from GS. Thing is - most sites are basing their statements at official russian values, which are ALL for export version which is restricted by MTCR. Same way as export version of 3M14 which is "not that different" is stated for same 300km, while original one was life fired at around 1.5k km and supposedly can go at up to 2.5k km.
As for not that different - it's quite easy to tweak range of export versions in lower side. Even just changing fuel (like from T-10 to simple T-6) will change quite a bit.
What's wrong with bragging about it? It is a joint project after all and India did get Brahmos in service before Russia got Yakhont into service.
First - I have personal allergy to immodest bragging (and BrahMos is example of one of immodestest I ever seen). Second - Russia never got Yakhont into service, it's export missile. Third - it got Oniks in 2002 while BrahMos appeared around 2006. As for "joint project" - it's like calling F-15I a joint project between US and Israel.

PS: as for speed - it varies for P-800 from source to source from 2.5 to 2.9M. 3M is indeed something a bit off.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
172
 
Top