US FF(X) Program - DISCUSSION

Ozair said:
Well at least as I hoped for there is the plan to operate it as a drone mothership with accompanied assets for munition depth. Will be interesting to see how that plays out with the basic design. I suspect a Flt II will be very quick out after the first few Flt I designs with VLS and other add ons.
Click to expand...
Everything built today can and will be designed to act as "Drone Motherships"..;
Ozair said:
I expect we'll get six to eight Flt I before a Flt II comes along so enough runway to design things properly and ideally the Flt II Management Team starts the same day as the Flt I guys. I doubt there will be the same shenanigans as there was with Constellation given the higher level visibility and claimed accountability.
Click to expand...
No,
johnpjones1775 said:
Right?
Far from useless.

Edit
While 8 ASMs and 2mk70 launchers on the fantail is less than ideal for a frigate, it allows for engaging surface and subsurface contacts.
Or decent AAW self defense.

So yeah much less than ideal, but plenty of use.
Click to expand...
It's not a Frigate, it's a Patrol Craft being labeled Frigate for $ funding purposes...
Legally, the "Patrol-Craft" role falls to the coast guard, but the Navy needs a ASW FFG and an Patrol Boat.
They should build both, unfortunately they decided to invest BILLIONS $ into Shipyard Upgrades for the constellation class in Marinette Wisconsin where there is no workforce to be had..!
Which is one of the main "lags" in the Constellation program, that and the necessary additions to FFG(X) design..!
 
TeourdBeourglaer said:
It's not a Frigate, it's a Patrol Craft being labeled Frigate for $ funding purposes...
Legally, the "Patrol-Craft" role falls to the coast guard, but the Navy needs a ASW FFG and an Patrol Boat.
Click to expand...

There's nothing legal that says patrol vessels are Coast Guard only. The Navy operated the Patrol Coastals (Cyclone-class), Patrol Gunboats (Asheville-class), Patrol Hydrofoils (Pegasus-class) and quite a few others. The first OH Perry was even ordered as a Patrol Frigate.
 
We could absolutely reclass the FFX-Flight 1s as PG or PGM (Patrol Gunboat, Missile), once either an ASW or an ASW-capable FFX Flight 2 shows up.
 
This article states the Flight 2s will have 16 Mk41 VLS tubes. He mentions a potential loadout of 64 ESSMs which may imply the Mk41 version selected.

Sounds like a new hull section forward of the bridge will be added to accommodate the VLS.

I do not know this author and do not now how credible this is but he states it like it is a done deal.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar..._vls_gap_the_navys_frigate_pivot_1191837.html
 
Jimmo952 said:
This article states the Flight 2s will have 16 Mk41 VLS tubes. He mentions a potential loadout of 64 ESSMs which may imply the Mk41 version selected.

Sounds like a new hull section forward of the bridge will be added to accommodate the VLS.

I do not know this author and do not now how credible this is but he states it like it is a done deal.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar..._vls_gap_the_navys_frigate_pivot_1191837.html
Click to expand...
Decent chance he’s just confusing it for the mk56 VLS that the legend class cutter was designed to be able to use.
 
cccgong said:
Decent chance he’s just confusing it for the mk56 VLS that the legend class cutter was designed to be able to use.
Click to expand...

I think he says the Mk41 is the chosen path forward and not the Mk56 the original cutter was designed for.

Edit. I was wrong. Here is his exact statement:

Historically, HII proposed a 12-cell Mk 41 layout that required no major structural modifications to the NSC hull. However, to maximize capability, Flight II accepts forward hull modifications to standardize a 16-cell Mk 41 VLS footprint.

He seems to be referring to HIIs FFGX submission and how that differs from what is being planned now.
 
Last edited:
The advantage I could see to having strike length Mk 41 on FF(X) would be to sneak a frigate into an area where the regional actor has to believe there is a real possibility it does actually carry Tomahawk. Even if it has 8-16 Tomahawks that could be significant. It would never have to be within range of weapons that shoot back from most of the nations around the globe. FF(X) is a visible, diplomatic force whereas a stealthy sub could carry far more power but they cannot see it. And you certainly would not want to reveal the sub location.

But to me the difference between the FF(X) and FFG(X) programs was the absence of Mk 41. Let is not forget the Russians stick Kaliber on patrol craft, so Tomahawk on FF(X) is not any leap in capability over the rest of the world.
 
JS23 said:
Don’t forget that they’ve also been working on a VLS version of LRASM.
Click to expand...

The USN has not, at least in public. No expressed interest at all at the moment.
 
JS23 said:
The USN hasn't bought it, but LockMart has nonetheless made and tested it.
Click to expand...

Right, but the USN is not buying it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TomS said:
There's no program where it fits. They could change their mind, but they have a ton of other weapons on their plate right now.
Click to expand...
Granted, but in event of "oh crap we need all the ship-launched cruise missiles we can get" being able to drop AGM-158s into Mk41 cells is a nice card up the sleeve.
 
I think that, theoretically, packing a couple of stealthy and deadly LRASM per hull on a bunch of relatively small and cheap frigates and doting them around the Pacific like a bunch of guerrilla snipers has some potential merit in terms of affecting the risk calculus of fleet movements (and maybe, in a pinch, punching above their weight against something way more valuable). Heck, even just the threat of it, not knowing whether any given boat has a silver bullet on board. Sort of like the old days of PT boats.
 
VL-LRASM is essentially a more modern JASSM. Sounds like 2.5 times weight of an NSM for much bigger effect. But the Tomahawk has 5x the range for an extra 600 pounds.
 
JS23 said:
I think that, theoretically, packing a couple of stealthy and deadly LRASM per hull on a bunch of relatively small and cheap frigates and doting them around the Pacific like a bunch of guerrilla snipers has some potential merit in terms of affecting the risk calculus of fleet movements (and maybe, in a pinch, punching above their weight against something way more valuable). Heck, even just the threat of it, not knowing whether any given boat has a silver bullet on board. Sort of like the old days of PT boats.
Click to expand...
It'd require open Mk41 cells on those Frigates.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom