US FF(X) Program

cccgong said:
My hope is the first FFG(x) comes out in 2028 right around election time, and the FF(x) is still in development hell. With Trump no longer in office and therefore less corruption and kick backs money is shifted back to FFG(x) as they are able to produce them now.
Click to expand...
Trump or no trump the corruption in our military acquisitions regardless of who is in office.
 
My take on acquisition problems has been the disjointed definition of capability between the different roles. In WW2 there was quite a lot of consistency from the lowest tiers to the top. A frigate didn't so much exist in USN jargon, and we had destroyer escorts. The British flipped the words and called them Escort Destroyers, but it didn't stop there as they also had frigates of the same weight class. The British distinguished frigates from destroyers simply by whether they carried torpedoes or not, and they had lighter sloops and an ambiguous notion of larger corvettes that were smaller than frigates but larger than sloops. The Russians had guard ships and the Japanese had kaibōkan (coastal patrol ship) in similar roles. Then you had all sorts of minor combatants such as gunboats, torpedo boats, patrol ships, monitors, and coastal defense ships. The USN kept it pretty simple, strap the biggest gun on it that it can handle. Smaller ships generally carried 3-inch/50-cal (76 mm) guns, and larger ones got 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns. Anti aircraft guns ranged in size from M2 Browning .50-cal BMGs, 20 mm (0.79 in) Oerlikon cannon, 1.1-inch/75-cal (28 mm) "Chicago Pianos", and the 40 mm (1.6 in) Bofors. But they simplified in most cases to single 20 mm and twins 40 mm mountings across smaller warships. Early pre-WW2 destroyers might have 4″/50-cal M1898s (102 mm) and/or obsolete 3-inch/23-cal (76 mm) guns. Destroyer escorts, primarily for antisubmarine warfare and convoy escort service, started getting built around 3-inch/50-cal (76 mm) guns in open mounts. Later destroyer escorts and pre-WW2 built destroyers often carried single 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns in enclosed mounts. Destroyers built during the war had improved mountings and gun fire control systems. Twin 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns started to become standard as destroyers got progressively designed larger. Early pre-WW2 cruisers and battleships with open mount 5-inch/25-cal (127 mm) guns were being replaced by more capable cruisers and battleships with concentric rings of twin 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns, backed by massive arrays of 20 mm and 40 mm cannon. The Oerlikon and Bofors were also spread across lighter vessels. Ships were bought in progressive sizes. Guns were built to progressive sizes. Boilers, fire controls, radars, and everything else were built with a small variances of sizes whenever possible, adapting designs to use what could be sustained during war-time. My current sense is that the USN has too many designs to maintain, and it needs to get back to the discipline of keeping new options and old options across the globe at the same time. Instead of upgrading every fleet with a hodgepodge, concentrate all of the new stuff into key areas and bump leftovers to the rest with an eye towards concentrating the same standardized equipment into the same fleets. The 7th and 5th Fleets needs the best atm. The 4th the least. The 2nd, 3rd, and 6th somewhere in between. Plan for upgrades to go in the key spots and trickle down eventually the the 4th. Assign major and niche assets to the fleets somewhat upon demand. Units in the niche FF(X) category may then better focus on what is needed as standard.
 
MadRat said:
My take on acquisition problems has been the disjointed definition of capability between the different roles. In WW2 there was quite a lot of consistency from the lowest tiers to the top. A frigate didn't so much exist in USN jargon, and we had destroyer escorts. The British flipped the words and called them Escort Destroyers, but it didn't stop there as they also had frigates of the same weight class. The British distinguished frigates from destroyers simply by whether they carried torpedoes or not, and they had lighter sloops and an ambiguous notion of larger corvettes that were smaller than frigates but larger than sloops. The Russians had guard ships and the Japanese had kaibōkan (coastal patrol ship) in similar roles. Then you had all sorts of minor combatants such as gunboats, torpedo boats, patrol ships, monitors, and coastal defense ships. The USN kept it pretty simple, strap the biggest gun on it that it can handle. Smaller ships generally carried 3-inch/50-cal (76 mm) guns, and larger ones got 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns. Anti aircraft guns ranged in size from M2 Browning .50-cal BMGs, 20 mm (0.79 in) Oerlikon cannon, 1.1-inch/75-cal (28 mm) "Chicago Pianos", and the 40 mm (1.6 in) Bofors. But they simplified in most cases to single 20 mm and twins 40 mm mountings across smaller warships. Early pre-WW2 destroyers might have 4″/50-cal M1898s (102 mm) and/or obsolete 3-inch/23-cal (76 mm) guns. Destroyer escorts, primarily for antisubmarine warfare and convoy escort service, started getting built around 3-inch/50-cal (76 mm) guns in open mounts. Later destroyer escorts and pre-WW2 built destroyers often carried single 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns in enclosed mounts. Destroyers built during the war had improved mountings and gun fire control systems. Twin 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns started to become standard as destroyers got progressively designed larger. Early pre-WW2 cruisers and battleships with open mount 5-inch/25-cal (127 mm) guns were being replaced by more capable cruisers and battleships with concentric rings of twin 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns, backed by massive arrays of 20 mm and 40 mm cannon. The Oerlikon and Bofors were also spread across lighter vessels. Ships were bought in progressive sizes. Guns were built to progressive sizes. Boilers, fire controls, radars, and everything else were built with a small variances of sizes whenever possible, adapting designs to use what could be sustained during war-time. My current sense is that the USN has too many designs to maintain, and it needs to get back to the discipline of keeping new options and old options across the globe at the same time. Instead of upgrading every fleet with a hodgepodge, concentrate all of the new stuff into key areas and bump leftovers to the rest with an eye towards concentrating the same standardized equipment into the same fleets. The 7th and 5th Fleets needs the best atm. The 4th the least. The 2nd, 3rd, and 6th somewhere in between. Plan for upgrades to go in the key spots and trickle down eventually the the 4th. Assign major and niche assets to the fleets somewhat upon demand. Units in the niche FF(X) category may then better focus on what is needed as standard.
Click to expand...
I think the loss of a true pressing naval threat and closure of naval yards has been the biggest issue.

Since the fall of the USSR we had to maintain high end warships with almost no high end thereat.
No major naval threat meant our navy shrank immensely, which resulted in closure of yards public and private.
Lack of major threats means new plansconstruction didn’t have any real direction on what they’re supposed to do.

Zumwalt and LCS programs were examples.

Zumwalt- we wanted a super stealthy ship to bombard the shore…who was the actual target in mind there?

LCS- start as a program for FAC-M and then ballooned.
 
I don’t think we should give the navy a blank check on this considering past naval projects. But as been noted in this thread, as much as I would like a frigate comparable to the constellation class, the FF(X) is a direct result of the inability to deliver these ships on time and on budget. Even though the FF(X) would arrive sooner, with potential conflict with China a year or two away at the soonest. That is a factor but not the most pressing one, at least to me. We certainly need more ships to compete with China, but again as been noted in this thread, FF(X) is perfect for taking the strain off our DDG’s, and has been chosen for this exact purpose. The FF(X) certainly has its limitations in ASW, that requires remediation in the form of a redesign, which won’t happen, or the use of USV’s, or some sort of containerized solution. And in terms of firepower the baseline FF(X) is certainly lacking, an obvious solution as put forward by the navy is container launchers on the fantail. As well as potentially angled launchers right behind the 57mm gun. I don’t know if anyone has suggested this, I’ll stand corrected if some has. But ERAM (or some sort of low cost cruise missile) seems like a perfect fit for giving these ships a cheap surface strike capability, considering there small form factor. And the Air Force is doing work on integrating the quicksink seeker onto the ERAM. If the choice is between ERAM and no surface strike missiles at all, then the choice is pretty easy. Of course it ain’t always necessary to launch JASSM or Tomahawk missiles when dealing with terrorists or tinpot dictators.
 
Last edited:
ERAM? It is air launched. More than likely it will get NSM. I would like to see it added but with a JSM-derived compact version. LCS featured quad NSM containers, one quad missile container pointed to each side. Not sure the need that many, but if their launcher shrinks its not going to decrease the number.

I think they should integrate NASAMS type of launchets full of AMRAAM-ER into one of those container spaces.
 
MadRat said:
ERAM? It is air launched. More than likely it will get NSM. I would like to see it added but with a JSM-derived compact version. LCS featured quad NSM containers, one quad missile container pointed to each side. Not sure the need that many, but if their launcher shrinks its not going to decrease the number.

I think they should integrate NASAMS type of launchets full of AMRAAM-ER into one of those container spaces.
Click to expand...


ERAM or literally any other low cost cruise missile under development by the services. I don’t doubt these ships will get the NSM at some point, but the navy will face severe shortages of precision munitions during a conflict. A source of cheaper alternatives won’t hurt if your dealing with lower tier threats, or need more volume during a conflict with China.
 
Last edited:
greedo said:
I can't see this even having steel cut before 2027 at the earliest. The SecNav can't just pick a builder. There are procedures and rules for contracts etc plus Congress needs to weigh in on this. But this is typical of this administration...
Click to expand...
The 'long way' of doing things doesnt work any more . In this instance there's a part built US Coast Guard NSC that the type is based already at the Pascagoula yard ( it was 12th and final ship but was cancelled)
I suggest this will be fast tracked to have the FFX in the water around their timeline, which is something 2028. Clearly 'batch 2' will be lengthened design while the initial ships are under construction.
My guess is that the existing FFG will also be built but not in large numbers but more than the 2 that revised contract allowscontract
 
MadRat said:
I think you were speaking of this ERAM:

Extended Range Attack Munition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I was confusing it with:

en.wikipedia.org

RIM-174 Standard ERAM - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Still an air-launched missile but much different architecture. Was there talk of ground launched ERAM in the former version? The latter version is ship launched of course, so much less of an issue firing from rails or erectors.

You probably want to look at:

RAACM Cruise Missile — CoAspire

www.coaspire.com www.coaspire.com
Click to expand...


I wish I had a security clearance to see what the navy has planned out in regards to deck mounted launchers. I would assume they are looking at “cheap” options such as the RAACM.
 
duker said:
The 'long way' of doing things doesnt work any more . In this instance there's a part built US Coast Guard NSC that the type is based already at the Pascagoula yard ( it was 12th and final ship but was cancelled)
I suggest this will be fast tracked to have the FFX in the water around their timeline, which is something 2028. Clearly 'batch 2' will be lengthened design while the initial ships are under construction.
My guess is that the existing FFG will also be built but not in large numbers but more than the 2 that revised contract allowscontract
Click to expand...
The partly build hull has been scrapped. Partly because it had many construction issues.

The FFX will not get in the water before 2029. Requirements definition has just started, contracting, negotiation, budgeting, long lead time item/tooling procurement, and construction still haven’t yet.

It’s more likely FFGX is launched first. If/when this happens it will invalidate the whole point of the FFX's existence.
 
Last edited:
cccgong said:
The partly build hull has been scrapped. Partly because it had many construction issues.

The FFX will not get in the water before 2029. Requirements definition has just started, contracting, negotiation, budgeting, long lead time item/tooling procurement, and construction still haven’t yet.

It’s more likely FFGX is launched first. If/when this happens it will invalidate the whole point of the FFX's existence.
Click to expand...
How will 1 of 2 hulls hitting the water invalidate FFX’s existence?

And quickly checking lay down to commissioning dates of legends, it’s 2-3 years.
FREMMs take 3-5 years to build in France and Italy.

No matter how you look at it, we can get the legends out faster, and the second batch even if a bit bigger, will likely still be faster to build once the design is finalized.
 
Last edited:
cccgong said:
The partly build hull has been scrapped. Partly because it had many construction issues.

The FFX will not get in the water before 2029. Requirements definition has just started, contracting, negotiation, budgeting, long lead time item/tooling procurement, and construction still haven’t yet.

It’s more likely FFGX is launched first. If/when this happens it will invalidate the whole point of the FFX's existence.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source that it was scrapped because I can’t find anything about that.

From what I’m being told the 11th is still 15% complete at HII, and the majority of the major parts for the 12th are still at HII as well.
 
greedo said:
I can't see this even having steel cut before 2027 at the earliest. The SecNav can't just pick a builder. There are procedures and rules for contracts etc plus Congress needs to weigh in on this. But this is typical of this administration...
Click to expand...

"Rules and procedures" are why we're in this mess in the first place lol. What was supposed to solve problems at the time became legal alchemy. It's time for a change of pace.

johnpjones1775 said:
Do you have a source that it was scrapped because I can’t find anything about that.

From what I’m being told the 11th is still 15% complete at HII, and the majority of the major parts for the 12th are still at HII as well.
Click to expand...

It would be extremely funny if it is actually Friedman since I think what scuppered it for USCG was the need to replace the whole thing.

It sat out too long during COVID work stop and got nasty apparently or it has/had bad welds. I'm not sure which.
 
MadRat said:
My take on acquisition problems has been the disjointed definition of capability between the different roles. In WW2 there was quite a lot of consistency from the lowest tiers to the top. A frigate didn't so much exist in USN jargon, and we had destroyer escorts. The British flipped the words and called them Escort Destroyers, but it didn't stop there as they also had frigates of the same weight class. The British distinguished frigates from destroyers simply by whether they carried torpedoes or not, and they had lighter sloops and an ambiguous notion of larger corvettes that were smaller than frigates but larger than sloops. The Russians had guard ships and the Japanese had kaibōkan (coastal patrol ship) in similar roles. Then you had all sorts of minor combatants such as gunboats, torpedo boats, patrol ships, monitors, and coastal defense ships. The USN kept it pretty simple, strap the biggest gun on it that it can handle. Smaller ships generally carried 3-inch/50-cal (76 mm) guns, and larger ones got 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns. Anti aircraft guns ranged in size from M2 Browning .50-cal BMGs, 20 mm (0.79 in) Oerlikon cannon, 1.1-inch/75-cal (28 mm) "Chicago Pianos", and the 40 mm (1.6 in) Bofors. But they simplified in most cases to single 20 mm and twins 40 mm mountings across smaller warships. Early pre-WW2 destroyers might have 4″/50-cal M1898s (102 mm) and/or obsolete 3-inch/23-cal (76 mm) guns. Destroyer escorts, primarily for antisubmarine warfare and convoy escort service, started getting built around 3-inch/50-cal (76 mm) guns in open mounts. Later destroyer escorts and pre-WW2 built destroyers often carried single 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns in enclosed mounts. Destroyers built during the war had improved mountings and gun fire control systems. Twin 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns started to become standard as destroyers got progressively designed larger. Early pre-WW2 cruisers and battleships with open mount 5-inch/25-cal (127 mm) guns were being replaced by more capable cruisers and battleships with concentric rings of twin 5-inch/38-cal (127 mm) guns, backed by massive arrays of 20 mm and 40 mm cannon. The Oerlikon and Bofors were also spread across lighter vessels. Ships were bought in progressive sizes. Guns were built to progressive sizes. Boilers, fire controls, radars, and everything else were built with a small variances of sizes whenever possible, adapting designs to use what could be sustained during war-time. My current sense is that the USN has too many designs to maintain, and it needs to get back to the discipline of keeping new options and old options across the globe at the same time. Instead of upgrading every fleet with a hodgepodge, concentrate all of the new stuff into key areas and bump leftovers to the rest with an eye towards concentrating the same standardized equipment into the same fleets. The 7th and 5th Fleets needs the best atm. The 4th the least. The 2nd, 3rd, and 6th somewhere in between. Plan for upgrades to go in the key spots and trickle down eventually the the 4th. Assign major and niche assets to the fleets somewhat upon demand. Units in the niche FF(X) category may then better focus on what is needed as standard.
Click to expand...
It should also be noted that the Zumwalt and Constellation programs hid an entire US naval yard upgrade program within their budgets because the Navy knows that Congress will never sign off on such a project.

Because of Congress deciding that Thatcher-ing US shipyards was the best idea ever in the 1970s (when the correct course of action is to effectively nationalize them, i.e., what Japan and South Korea did) and constantly doing nothing to actually rectify that action (if not outright sabotaging any attempt to do so), the USN has to hide such programs.

It also didn't help that the 'floor' for what would be considered a frigate has risen significantly in recent decades. May I remind everyone here that destroyers started at only a few hundred tons in terms of displacement when they were first introduced... We're now in a situation where the new 'floor' is plainly obvious.
 
Kat Tsun said:
"Rules and procedures" are why we're in this mess in the first place lol. What was supposed to solve problems at the time became legal alchemy. It's time for a change of pace.



It would be extremely funny if it is actually Friedman since I think what scuppered it for USCG was the need to replace the whole thing.

It sat out too long during COVID work stop and got nasty apparently or it has/had bad welds. I'm not sure which.
Click to expand...
Again, do you have a source that it either was scrapped, because I’m hearing the 11th and 12th will be basically rushed to be finished as the first 2 of the FFX with a third or fourth rounding out the first batch.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Again, do you have a source that it either was scrapped, because I’m hearing the 11th and 12th will be basically rushed to be finished as the first 2 of the FFX with a third or fourth rounding out the first batch.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was scrapped and there's no news articles about it anyway. It was just canceled because it wasn't economically viable for USCG to repair the hull after it got left out for a year in 2020-2021.
 
Kat Tsun said:
I don't think it was scrapped and there's no news articles about it anyway. It was just canceled because it wasn't economically viable for USCG to repair the hull after it got left out for a year in 2020-2021.
Click to expand...

The headline says they "scrapped" it but that seems like it may only refer to the contract.

This is the statement from HII:
“In mutual agreement with the USCG, we have signed a contract modification that identifies an alternate strategy related to the sunsetting of the NSC program, which has already exceeded the original acquisition objective of eight ships. Rather than proceeding with construction of the eleventh ship of the NSC class, we have agreed to execute a plan that maximizes readiness of the existing NSC fleet, by supporting overall operational availability and capability of the first ten NSCs in service.”
Click to expand...
To me, this looks like they are as close to saying they are scrapping it as possible without coming right out with it.

The resolution apparently ended up with $260 million going back to the government, probably for uncompleted work, and the Coast Guard getting $135 million in spare parts, which sounds a lot like reallocating long-lead equipment.

Given the fact that Friedman was 15% complete at the time of cancellation, there probably hadn't been any serious work since 2022 or 2023, and that percentage is very far from even a completed hull. However, every source I've seen said construction started in 2021, so I don't know how it got left out in the rain from 2020 to 2021.

Unless the hull section visible on Google Earth at 30°20'45.98"N, 88°34'26.53"W is Friedman, I see no indications that any NSC actually began assembly at Pascagoula after Calhoun.
 
Not James Stockdale said:

The headline says they "scrapped" it but that seems like it may only refer to the contract.

This is the statement from HII:

To me, this looks like they are as close to saying they are scrapping it as possible without coming right out with it.

The resolution apparently ended up with $260 million going back to the government, probably for uncompleted work, and the Coast Guard getting $135 million in spare parts, which sounds a lot like reallocating long-lead equipment.

Given the fact that Friedman was 15% complete at the time of cancellation, there probably hadn't been any serious work since 2022 or 2023, and that percentage is very far from even a completed hull. However, every source I've seen said construction started in 2021, so I don't know how it got left out in the rain from 2020 to 2021.

Unless the hull section visible on Google Earth at 30°20'45.98"N, 88°34'26.53"W is Friedman, I see no indications that any NSC actually began assembly at Pascagoula after Calhoun.
Click to expand...
I am getting my info from a congressional navy liaison who is in contact with SECNAV on these issues.
He may be wrong/mistaken, but that’s why I am questioning the scrapped bit.
 
My general assumption is that the first one or two FF(X) will be USCG cutters and then follow-on will be either FFG(X) patrol frigates or a couple of repeats of the cutters followed by integration of the 4501/491x/492x PFs into the production line since those will need Mk 41s tbh. That's literally the only reason you'd pick HII for this.
 
Kat Tsun said:
My general assumption is that the first one or two FF(X) will be USCG cutters and then follow-on will be either FFG(X) patrol frigates or a couple of repeats of the cutters followed by integration of the 4501/491x/492x PFs into the production line since those will need Mk 41s tbh. That's literally the only reason you'd pick HII for this.
Click to expand...
One or more of those HII concepts mounts towed sonar and VLS, plus the flight deck, hangar, gun, RAM, SLQ-32, & some kind of AESA. That’s pretty much what the USN needs.

Do you think they can get a redesigned flight II with rafted machinery in the water by 2029?
 
Maskoki said:
One or more of those HII concepts mounts towed sonar and VLS, plus the flight deck, hangar, gun, RAM, SLQ-32, & some kind of AESA. That’s pretty much what the USN needs.

Do you think they can get a redesigned flight II with rafted machinery in the water by 2029?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by get? They’ll likely get the finalized design approved by 2029, I’m hoping by summer 2028 it’s approved, and work started no later than January 2029
 
Maskoki said:
One or more of those HII concepts mounts towed sonar and VLS, plus the flight deck, hangar, gun, RAM, SLQ-32, & some kind of AESA. That’s pretty much what the USN needs.

Do you think they can get a redesigned flight II with rafted machinery in the water by 2029?
Click to expand...

It doesn't need all of that. PF 4923 is fine if a bit extravagant for the role asked.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
And quickly checking lay down to commissioning dates of legends, it’s 2-3 years.
FREMMs take 3-5 years to build in France and Italy.

No matter how you look at it, we can get the legends out faster
Click to expand...
You'll find that the Legends take about as long as the FREMMs to build. About 3.5 - 4yrs, counting from 1st steel cut to 1st sea trials.

That's as expected as there's no reason that HII at Pascagoula would be particularly faster or better than any other yard.

The date laid down doesn't mean much, it's the start of fabrication (1st steel cut) that matters. Likewise commissioning is often an arbitrary date and varies from navy to navy so best to use the date of 1st sea trials or the date of delivery when the ship leaves its builders' port for its homeport.

For the 1st FF(X) even if they are able to leverage 1-2 NSC hull modules (in bad shape) construction won't be much faster. And you need to add 6-12 months for contracting + mobilizing resources before fabrication can start. And 3-6 months for trials and delivery. So best case you're looking at builders trials in late 2029 and delivery in 2030...
 
H_K said:
You'll find that the Legends take about as long as the FREMMs to build. About 3.5 - 4yrs, counting from 1st steel cut to 1st sea trials.

That's as expected as there's no reason that HII at Pascagoula would be particularly faster or better than any other yard.

The date laid down doesn't mean much, it's the start of fabrication (1st steel cut) that matters. Likewise commissioning is often an arbitrary date and varies from navy to navy so best to use the date of 1st sea trials or the date of delivery when the ship leaves its builders' port for its homeport.

For the 1st FF(X) even if they are able to leverage 1-2 NSC hull modules (in bad shape) construction won't be much faster. And you need to add 6-12 months for contracting + mobilizing resources before fabrication can start. And 3-6 months for trials and delivery. So best case you're looking at builders trials in late 2029 and delivery in 2030...
Click to expand...
I mean it’s a significantly smaller ship, that’s why it would likely not take as long for HII to build them…

Looking at the FREMMs
Aquitane laid down ‘07 commissioned ‘12
Normandie laid down’14 commissioned ‘20
Provence laid down ‘10 commissioned’15

Bergamini laid down ‘08 commissioned ‘13
Virginio laid down ‘09 commissioned ‘13
Margotini laid down ‘10 commissioned’14

So lay down to commissioning dates for both Italian and French versions seem to be 4+ years. Meanwhile lay down to commissioning rate for legends is about 2-3 years.

There’s also absolutely no reason to believe FMM could pump a FREMM out faster than the Italians or French.
 
I still think its wild how the need for frigates went from

Hey lets take an existing frigate and turn it into a destroyer
to
Hey lets take a coast guard cutter instead
 
helmutkohl said:
I still think its wild how the need for frigates went from

Hey lets take an existing frigate and turn it into a destroyer
to
Hey lets take a coast guard cutter instead
Click to expand...

I still don’t see how Constellation was anywhere close to a destroyer
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I mean it’s a significantly smaller ship, that’s why it would likely not take as long for HII to build them…

Looking at the FREMMs
Aquitane laid down ‘07 commissioned ‘12
Normandie laid down’14 commissioned ‘20
Provence laid down ‘10 commissioned’15

Bergamini laid down ‘08 commissioned ‘13
Virginio laid down ‘09 commissioned ‘13
Margotini laid down ‘10 commissioned’14

So lay down to commissioning dates for both Italian and French versions seem to be 4+ years. Meanwhile lay down to commissioning rate for legends is about 2-3 years.

There’s also absolutely no reason to believe FMM could pump a FREMM out faster than the Italians or French.
Click to expand...

The idea that they were going to put them out faster than the shipyards that originally made the ships is rather ridiculous but I hardly think a delivery by 2030 was ridiculous when the new program won’t deliver a ship much sooner and one which is vastly less capable
 
Mallard said:
The idea that they were going to put them out faster than the shipyards that originally made the ships is rather ridiculous but I hardly think a delivery by 2030 was ridiculous when the new program won’t deliver a ship much sooner and one which is vastly less capable
Click to expand...
Might not provide the first one sooner, but can provide more faster.
 
Mallard said:
I still don’t see how Constellation was anywhere close to a destroyer
Click to expand...
You mean other than the fact it was nearly the same tonnage as a F1 Burke?
7300 tons for the constellation vs 8300 tons for a F1 burke

Beyond tonnage, because they more or less fill the same role as DDGs in fleets that can’t afford to build and man dozens of DDGs.
 
Mallard said:
I still don’t see how Constellation was anywhere close to a destroyer
Click to expand...
Constellation is a modern day Spruance / Kidd class.

Top notch ASW destroyer, better than anything the USN has ever had before. Plus a very good AAW platform with a modern radar as good as SPY-1D. Won't do BMD, but doesn't need to - that's what cruisers are for. Doesn't have the magazine depth of a DDG-51, but not every ship needs to. It's just about the perfect complement to offset the DDGs' weaknesses... much better ASW, more ASuW missiles, half the cost.

FF(X) by contrast is going to be pretty useless in wartime. Barely better than LCS, wouldn't even compare to an old FFG-7.
 
H_K said:
Constellation is a modern day Spruance / Kidd class.

Top notch ASW destroyer, better than anything the USN has ever had before. Plus a very good AAW platform with a modern radar as good as SPY-1D. Won't do BMD, but doesn't need to - that's what cruisers are for. Doesn't have the magazine depth of a DDG-51, but not every ship needs to. It's just about the perfect complement to offset the DDGs' weaknesses... much better ASW, more ASuW missiles, half the cost.

FF(X) by contrast is going to be pretty useless in wartime. Barely better than LCS, wouldn't even compare to an old FFG-7.
Click to expand...
No, Constellation is a modern day FFG7.
 
Kat Tsun said:
I don't think it was scrapped and there's no news articles about it anyway. It was just canceled because it wasn't economically viable for USCG to repair the hull after it got left out for a year in 2020-2021.
Click to expand...
May articles say scrapped, and its been over 6 years of sitting out. It’s either been scrapped as the articles indicate, or it’s sat out so long it’s rusted into uselessness.
 
H_K said:
It's a high end task force escort, ASW focused like Spruance, but also AAW capable like a Kidd.
Click to expand...
The minimum requirement has increased such that ffgx is now a modern ffg7 equivalent.

See the new euro frigates all of them are ffgx esque despite most of them not being designed to fight China and rather being designed for lower threats.
 
cccgong said:
The minimum requirement has increased such that ffgx is now a modern ffg7 equivalent.

See the new euro frigates all of them are ffgx esque despite most of them not being designed to fight China and rather being designed for lower threats.
Click to expand...
Nope. The FREMMs for one are most definitely designed for high-end threats, as they serve as the main ASW escort for a Carrier Strike Group. Top notch sonar, acoustics, defense against supersonic sea skimming missiles etc. Same goes for Type 26, F110 and other Eurofrigates with similar frontline ASW roles. Exactly like the Spruance class DDs back in the day.

Modern FFG-7 is more like a Meko A200 or Type 31... generalist escort for merchants, amphibs or ships in slightly lower threat areas.
 
H_K said:
Nope. The FREMMs for one are most definitely designed for high-end threats, as they serve as the main ASW escort for a Carrier Strike Group. Top notch sonar, acoustics, defense against supersonic sea skimming missiles etc.

Modern FFG-7 is more like a Meko A200 or Type 31.
Click to expand...
The FREMMs will have been commissioned for 17+ years by the time ffgx enters the water. So that’s absolutely not the right comparison.

The FREMMs were for threats that long ago. It was also never designed to for a modern Pacific war. It’s top end pacing threat would have been a severely degraded post Soviet Russia. With the normal threat being gunboat diplomacy or Iran.

So by Meko A200 you mean a 40+ year old design. By Type 31 you mean a design in which 3/3 variants are basically FFGX with some of them having better radars (4 vs 3 radar panels on FFGX).
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
What articles?
Click to expand...
As I've said a few times, put in some basic effort at finding your own information..... It's literally the first naval news link. Either way you've now been ignored.

letmegooglethat.com

Wmsl-760 Scrapped

For those who think it's easier to annoy you than to Google 'Wmsl-760 scrapped' themselves.
letmegooglethat.com letmegooglethat.com
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom