US FF(X) Program - DISCUSSION

[Felocie]

The Navy, under pressure to get hulls in the water, authorized construction to begin while these design changes were being made, necessitating re-work and re-design.
( see the 1st paragraph of your 2nd quote )
These were decisions made by the USN, not the shipyard.

Beginning construction before DD&C is complete is typical procedure. It was done for DDG-51, LPD-17, and DDG-1000.

Yet you somehow choose to ignore the root cause of the several billion boondoggle.

The cancellation of Zumwalt and the proceeding hole it left in fleet ASW capability?

The USN has made two other bad design decisions before the Constellation

Even if I accept that DDG-1000 was a bad design (which I flat out don't) that's 2 bad decisions compared to:

- The Ford class CVNs
- The late model Nimitz class CVNs
- The Wasps
-The Americas
- The San Antonios
- Initial run DDG-51s
- The IIA restart
- The Flt IIIs
- The Supply class
- The Kaisers
- The John Lewis class
- The L&C class
- The Spearheads
- The Watsons
- The Navajos
- The ESDs
- The ESBs
- The 774s

- Numerous auxiliary programs, both NEWCON and conversions

- Innumerable smaller programs like SSC and LCU-1700

All during the same period that LCS and Zumwalt were being developed. A legacy of failure? perhaps if you cherry-pick certain examples and don't contextualize them.

The parent company Fincantieri, is a successful builder of all types of surface combatants, including small aircraft carriers.

Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM) is not Fincantieri. FMM has as bad track record delivering Freedoms and had no experience working to the required Navy milspec requirement.

The USN has made two other bad design decisions before the Constellation, and still can't decide what it wants next, an unarmed ( containerized systems ? ... that worked out well before ) Coast Guard cutter, or foreign ( S Korea, Japan, or Turkiye even ) built ships, which will be required to be built in country after the foreign manufacturer sets up a shipyard in the US. And if that was the case, wouldn't it have been a better Navy decision to go with the Italian FREMM ( which they decided was best ) to begin with ?

Italian FREMM (Bergamini) did not meet the requirements laid out by the Navy at the very beginning of the program, therefore FMM entered a derivative derived from the FREMM parent hull (that's the point of Parent Hull Design).