US FF(X) Program

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.
16 sams (FREMM average, without CIWS in French case) and close range corvette self defense suit(type 26) just screams top end threats.
I'll honestly not be too surprised if these in real conditions won't be able to reliably fend off TT launched missile salvo. Which is the lowest level threat v Russia.
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.
Even post-Soviet Russia, when it is present, is not that low.
It's telling that average Eu frigate has substantially less aa armament than average Ru corvette. That doesn't mean they're insuitable - they are, just when covered and/or operated in backline. So is FFX.

Irony with Iran is you have too adjust to it. Ending up with normal frigate v IRGCN swarms is likely a very suboptimal experience. ASuW LCS or Type 31 look the way they do(and still require ABM cover v Iran) for a reason.
 
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).
Ha? Meko 200 was a very different ship to the modern A200. Although i have to say technology is changing fast. Lasers and microwaves are going to need far more power generation than what has usually been built into recent ships. Demand is only going to increase, and the redundant generators and accessible pathways for high voltage power buses will hopefully become part of new designs. Probably not really something that gets designed into the FFX, but maybe pulsed lasers dont need as much power as i imagine.
 
16 sams (FREMM average, without CIWS in French case) and close range corvette self defense suit(type 26) just screams top end threats.
I'll honestly not be too surprised if these in real conditions won't be able to reliably fend off TT launched missile salvo. Which is the lowest level threat v Russia.

Even post-Soviet Russia, when it is present, is not that low.
It's telling that average Eu frigate has substantially less aa armament than average Ru corvette. That doesn't mean they're insuitable - they are, just when covered and/or operated in backline. So is FFX.

Irony with Iran is you have too adjust to it. Ending up with normal frigate v IRGCN swarms is likely a very suboptimal experience. ASuW LCS or Type 31 look the way they do(and still require ABM cover v Iran) for a reason.
If you're dancing with IRGC speedboats, the Weps should have horse-traded to "acquire" a couple extra Mk38s to mount. Or talked to a Marine or Army unit to acquire some RWS units with either .50cal or Mk19s.
 
If you're dancing with IRGC speedboats, the Weps should have horse-traded to "acquire" a couple extra Mk38s to mount. Or talked to a Marine or Army unit to acquire some RWS units with either .50cal or Mk19s.
It's many things - IRGCN flotillas evolved a whole lot since Praying Mantis; while humans are in fact afraid of death, in every other sense they're far more dangerous form of what Ukraine does in Black sea.

For many years, IRGCN boat deliveries carry universal guided weaponry (anti-air/anti-surface), they're covered by dedicated air defense cutters(stand in) and corvettes(stand off).
If they're seriously going to go for a kill on a normal medium combatant armed just with RWS and native armament in congested gulf area, this is likely aufiderzein. Not enough? There's still ground effect component, and of course the huge IRGC rocket force.

Even something seriously powerful, like Burke formation, can find itself pushed into the corner and fighting for its life.

This is why countries actually dealing with Iran (US, UK, gulf neighbors) spent last two decades to adapt to the threat, and dedicated entire classes of ships to this specific threat. Outside of the region, maybe Italy seems to be reasonably prepared for these conditions, just because their lessons back from WW2 keep them on a right enough track.
Not a guarantee, but chances they'll do better the most.
 
Might not provide the first one sooner, but can provide more faster.

But with a fraction of the capability, in fact If argue FFX serves a completely different role than FFGX because it’s incapable of such, it can free Burkes up from mundane taskings but the US battle force is going to shrink.
 
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.

I did, not a single article popped up about the ship being scrapped.
Do you not understand that two people can google the exact same keywords and have very different search results? That’s how personalized algorithms work.
 
But with a fraction of the capability, in fact If argue FFX serves a completely different role than FFGX because it’s incapable of such, it can free Burkes up from mundane taskings but the US battle force is going to shrink.
Whatever you say
 
Not any frigate that is in use, and seems rather difficult to put any frigate like equipment on it
I never said in use frigate design.
They designed a whole family of ships, most of which were various frigate designs. The cutter was the least capable member of the family.
 
Sorry to go off topic for a bit, is that supposed to mean "auf Wiedersehen"?
Autocorrect sometimes does inexplicable magic:(
Btw, I wonder how difficult it is to come up with some self-contained naval-nasams.

As such system are growing more and more popular on land, and in some cases at sea as well.
 
Btw, I wonder how difficult it is to come up with some self-contained naval-nasams.

As such system are growing more and more popular on land, and in some cases at sea as well.
NASAMS requires a command module, or several, to coordinate sensors and launchers. It is a feasible system to add to not just a ship, but spread among multiple ships. On land these systems are spread out into wide areas and can handle coordination of redundant units.
 
NASAMS requires a command module, or several, to coordinate sensors and launchers. It is a feasible system to add to not just a ship, but spread among multiple ships. On land these systems are spread out into wide areas and can handle coordination of redundant units.
Sort of. Came to me since we remembered Iranian speedboats, and for quite a few years they have just this kind of "speedy TELs"
 
I never said in use frigate design.
They designed a whole family of ships, most of which were various frigate designs. The cutter was the least capable member of the family.

Yet they don’t seem to be building these readily available frigate derivatives.
 
16 sams (FREMM average, without CIWS in French case) and close range corvette self defense suit(type 26) just screams top end threats.
I'll honestly not be too surprised if these in real conditions won't be able to reliably fend off TT launched missile salvo. Which is the lowest level threat v Russia.

So you don't think Aster can intercept Kalibr, when it's taken down far more difficult targets in Ukraine?

It's telling that average Eu frigate has substantially less aa armament than average Ru corvette.

The average Russian corvette* has an AA armament of a quad launcher for Igla. The Karakurts are a bit better as they have an actual CIWS, either Pantsir-M with 57E6 or Hermes-K (which can't seem to decide if it's a SAM or a land-attack missile), or Palash with Sosna-R. The only Russian corvettes with a genuine area air defence system are the Stereguschiys, with 12 Redut cells for 9M96.

* Grisha, Nanuchka, Tarantul, Bora, Buyan, Buyan-M (okay, 2 quad launchers), Parchim
 
That’s literally what they’re going to end up doing. Are you really this dense?
At the current time, all that has been announced is that the first batch FF(X)s will be a Legend in a grey overcoat, while later batches will probably add a VLS. None of which says that they're going to build any of HII's previously proposed Legend-derivative PFs.
 
That’s literally what they’re going to end up doing. Are you really this dense?
No its not. They may be dusting off old plans for Legend derivatives, but so far nobody has suggested they might go back to some pre-Legend design that had a variant that eventually became the Legend class. If there was a useful earlier design, I would be suprised if it was any more than a fighty OPV with an extra gun or hellfires.
And how can it protect the convoys exactly? Long range bombers, no defense against that. Submarines? Nope, got nothing there
It can't. Even modified for a towed array its still pretty limited against any modern ASW threat. And lets face it, any convoy needing escort is valuable enough to be a serious target. But then it might protect convoys by being a more juicy target than the merchant ships. With a few drones tagging along maybe, but you don't have the types of drones that would be needed in any numbers. And any AAW drone would need a small VLS farm to field ESSM, and some line-of-sight systems like EW, CIWS or laser. Presumably those are all to be managed from the FF(X), so that will need a pretty substantial CIC, and deployed with sufficient redundancy for the drones to keep fighting after losing an FF(X).
Have you ignored everything has been said on here?
About taking over low threat regions that don't need combat ships? But then somebody said this thing was now going to escort convoys.

Its either a combat ship or its not. And if its a combat ship it needs a survivability standard worthy of its FF designation.
 
What articles?

Articles? No not really. They (journalists) don't get that in depth anymore.

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.


The USNI article is literally confusing a contract cancellation, which is a legal process, with scrapping, which is a physical process done to a hulk at Brownsville, TX. Is it really so hard to understand the confusion as to the present state of the physical hull of WMSL-760 and whether or not it will be finished in haze gray, USCGC white, or be sent to Texas for disassembly?

Generally speaking it takes a while to tow a hulk to Brownsville but I'm pretty sure Friedman was so incomplete it will need to be disassembled in situ. It may already have been or it may simply be sitting around for the past year waiting for a new contract while negotiations between HII and DHS happened.

It's entirely reasonable to think that DON has stepped in to buy an orphan, unfinished hull and funded a second ship. The long lead items would still be in place and construction could be resumed quickly, depending on the condition of Friedman's hull, which is unclear in press releases.

I suspect DON doesn't/didn't know the condition or status of Friedman when it signed on for FF(X) and is simply hoping it's workable.

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).

The top end threat of the PRC is comparable to a 40 year old sub design. It really hasn't changed much from Akulas and improved Akulas.

Convoy escort.

Convoys won't exist. Too high profile. There will be individual ships escorted into the blockade area by USN surface action groups after crossing into the grey zone near Japan. The FF(X) is to reduce virtual attrition on the Burke force so more Burkes can be moved from SOUTHCOM and AFRICOM into INDOPACCOM to do this.

The U.S. will likely rely on ghost fleet ships flying random national flags to avoid arousing suspicion of Chinese naval intelligence.

That's the closest to a convoy you will get.
 
Last edited:
Sort of. Came to me since we remembered Iranian speedboats, and for quite a few years they have just this kind of "speedy TELs"
The NASAMS system uses the Common Ground Rail (CGR). CGR is an adaptation of existing Missile Rail launcher (MRL) family used by aircraft that just so happens to be fairly compatible to a lot of missiles: AMRAAM, AMRAAM-ER (ESSM body with AIM-120C-8 front), Sidewinders up to the AIM-9X, AIM-132 ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Derby, Python, A/R-Darter, MICA, and Meteor.

The U.S. Army uses a Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) capable of firing Hellfire, Stinger, and AIM-9X missiles. The U.S. Army's Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2 looked seriously at Hellfire Longbow to supplement AMRAAM but it looks like AIM-9X was the better fit as Hellfire was determined to be hazardous. Avenger, M-SHORAD, and Ukraine's Tempest have all tested Hellfire Longbow for air defense. Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) has also explored Hellfire Longbow for integration. In 2012, ESSM was tested with NASAMS for evaluation to market it to MIM-23 Hawk users. AMRAAM-ER was also selected for testing. Denmark is the first country to buy AMRAAM-ER.
 
The U.S. Army uses a Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) capable of firing Hellfire, Stinger, and AIM-9X missiles. The U.S. Army's Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2 looked seriously at Hellfire Longbow to supplement AMRAAM but it looks like AIM-9X was the better fit as Hellfire was determined to be hazardous.
The 15 cell Multi-Missile Launcher was part of IFPC Increment 1 (CRAM), but it was scrapped due to reported launch issues with the AIM-9X and replaced by the Leidos-Dynetics Enduring Shield for IFPC Increment 2 (CRAM + cUAS and counter Cruise Missile)*, which is basically an evolved MML with 18 launch cells and no AIM-9X launch issues. Enduring Shield will be deployed as a platoon of four launchers plus an AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel networked via the Integrated Battle Command System. The initial Dynetics order was for 16 launchers and 60 missiles to be delivered by 2024. A 2025 order under IFPC Increment 2-I (Interceptor) covers further development. The ultimate plan is 400 launchers.

Currently the only IFPC missile is AIM-9X, but LockMart, Boeing-Anduril and Rafael have contracts** to develop an IFPC 2nd Interceptor, where the Army apparently wants the performance of AIM-120D in an AIM-9X sized missile. Downselect is due this year with development due by 2030.

* cUAS vs Group 2 and 3 drones seems to have been split out into Next-Generation C-UAS Missile (NGCM), which was won by the Aerovironment Freedom-Eagle 1 (seriously?) over the existing Coyote, both of which cost somewhere around $100,000, vs $500,000 for an AIM-9X.

** Awarded separately (October, December, and last week) under Other Transaction Authority to avoid conventional contracts (and conventional competition downselects?).

(Which all sounds like a very expensive way to avoid buying NASAMS).
 
Avenger, M-SHORAD, and Ukraine's Tempest have all tested Hellfire Longbow for air defense.
Hellfire was pulled from Sgt Stout/M-SHORAD, it's not robust enough for extended deployment on a launch rail on a ground vehicle.
 
Hellfire was pulled from Sgt Stout/M-SHORAD, it's not robust enough for extended deployment on a launch rail on a ground vehicle.

Hopefully they can integrate something like Coyote for the job instead. Helicopters firing BLOS against armor is a bit of a menace.
 
Okay, fellas. Let's start nailing down specific baselines for an FF(X). I propose:

Main Gun Weapon System (GWS) - Bofors 57 mm (2.24") Mark 110 Mod 4 Naval Automatic Gun System (AGS) mounted in a low-RCS stealth cupola atop the fore-deck. 120 rounds ready in the mount; additional rounds can be loaded from below-deck magazines. Mark 110 is operated by remote control from the Gun Console (GC) within the Control Officers Console (COC) of the Mark 160 Gun Computer System (Mark 160 GCS), but can be controlled locally in the gun mount. Mark 160 GCS is capable of direct firing attacks against surface radar and optically tracked targets, as well as indirect firing during Naval Gun Fire Support (NGFS). Alternate: Oto Melara 76 mm/62-cal Super Rapid Compact Naval Gun (aka OTO 76/62 SR) is a high-performance naval gun, offering rapid fire, multi-role capabilities, and advanced ammunition options. Total destructive effect favors the 76mm for larger near-misses, but guided and smart 57mm rounds narrow the gap.

Gun Fire Control - Mark 160 Gun Computer System (Mark 160 GCS), AN/SPQ-9B Multi-Purpose Surface Search and Fire Control radar (aka "Spook 9"), and Mark 20 Mod 1 Electro Optic Sensor System (Mark 20 EOSS). Mark 160 GCS is located in the ship's Combat Information Center (CIC) and serves as both the central fire control brain and primary interface between the Mark 110 GWS, the ship's Command and Decision (C&D) system, and an array of mixed sensors. Within the Combat Information Center (CIC), the Gun Console (GC)—often part of the Control Officer's Console (COC)—acts as the main operator interface for the Mk 160. Mark 160 GCS translates target information into gun aiming orders via the Signal Data Converter/Gun Mount Processor (SDC/GMP) and the precision enables an effective Anti-Ship Missile Defense (ASMD). There are two Mark 20 EOSS aboard, and together these serve three primary functions: EOSS/GWS integration, automatic target detection and tracking, and day/night video surveillance. AN/SPQ-9B is controlled at the COC; the high-fidelity X-Band, pulse-doppler radar provides defense against low altitude (below 2000 ft) surface and air targets such as sea skimming missiles, for either gun fire engagement or navigation. Track While Scan (TWS) mode provides high resolutions in two dimensions for the detection and tracking of more than one thousand objects at or near the surface of the water. The Control Officer operates the AN/SPQ-9B and displays target video on the Plan Position Indicator (PPI), assigns targets to the TWS channels, initiates the desired operating mode, selects the Gun Fire Control Console (GFCC), assigns targets and respective gun mounts to a respective Weapons Control Console (WCC), enables WCC firing circuits, then disables the WCC after engagement. Mark 20 EOSS supports operations including anti-surface and anti-air warfare, spotting and damage assessment, target detection and identification, naval gun fire support, safety check-sight, location/track of man overboard and channel position and navigation. The MT 51 Velocimeter (located on the main gun mount) measures the initial velocity of the round leaving the barrel via a doppler signal.

CIWS - One fore-mounted Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) with the 20 mm M61A2 Vulcan 6-barreled Gatling cannon, or 11-cell SeaRAM for forward and abeam shots. One 21-cell RIM-116C Block 2B Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) in RAM Mark 31 Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS) located high astern for rearward and abeam shots. Both Phalanx CIWS and SeaRAM are autonomous systems which do not need any external information to engage threats. Due to the common mounting, SeaRAM inherits the relatively easy installation characteristics of its gun-based sibling.

Close Range MG - Typhon-mount (Mark 38 Mod 3) Machine Gun System (MGS) located abeam each side, with a TOPLITE gimbal stabilized 25 mm/1" Bushmaster II. The MGS features multi-functional displays in a remote control console, independent electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors, a laser rangefinder, target autotracking, and two ammunition types. Each Mod 3 also features a backup 7.62mm Mark 52 co-axial gun. MGS focuses on robust close-in self defense. Direct-fire defense against small surface craft and as part of a layered protection against missile and drone threats. Distributed to each quadrant, either the 12.7 mm (.50") M2HB Browning Heavy Machine Guns (HMG; with 100 round or 200 round ammo can holder) or MK19 40 mm Grenade belt-fed Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL; with 32 or 48 round ammo cans) on MK93 Mod 4 free-swinging pintle mounts. With adapters the M60/MK43 7.62 mm General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG; with 250 round ammo can), M240 7.62 mm GPMG (with 300 round ammo can), or M249 5.56 mm Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW; 250 round ammo box) can be installed on the MK93 mount as alternative options.

Angle-container Missiles - 8 RGM-184 Naval Strike Missiles (NSM Q) for surface and land strikes, 12 AMRAAM-ER or AIM-9X in six-pack LCHR-derived multi-missile launch containers from NASAMS 3 for air-defense, 8 Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) or 16 Ground Launched StormBreaker (GLSDB2) containers for precision fires land strike, or 24 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles for counter-drone roles; or any combination thereof. Located on the upper weapons deck.

VLS Missiles - Mounted in combination of medial and/or exterior (perimeter) deck spaces. 12/24 RIM-162E Block 2 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) in one or two medially located 6-cell dual-packed Mark 56 Guided Missile Vertical Launching System (GMVLS). Provisional space for an additional two Stanflex modular mission payloads, laterally located on the lower weapons deck perimeter.

Directed Energy Weapons - 60 kW High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) for light speed counter drone (UAS/UUV) capability. LRADs (long-range acoustic devices) to repel pirate attacks by sending warnings and by producing intolerable levels of sound.

Torpedo and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) - Mark 32 surface vessel torpedo triple tubes for the 12.75-inch (324 mm) Mark 54 ASW torpedo. Copperhead-100M reusable unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) delivered by Anduril's Ghost Shark AI-powered extra-large autonomous underwater vehicle (XL-AUV) designed for long-range, persistent, and stealthy surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike missions.

Other Ship Defenses - Two Nulka decoy launchers. Nulka hovers in the air and emits radiofrequency energy to lure the seekers of anti-ship missiles. AN/SLQ-32 Mod 5 electronic warfare suite. Mark 36 Super Rapid Bloom Offboard Countermeasures Chaff and Decoy Launching System (SRBOC aka "Super-R-Boc") short-range Decoy Launching System (DLS) that launches radar or infrared decoys from naval vessels to foil incoming anti-ship missiles. SLQ-32 (with the exception of the (V)4 variant) can automatically fire decoys from the Mark 36 SRBOCs when it detects an anti-ship missile attack. Towed and offboard decoys for submarine torpedo threats.

Communications - Multi-Functional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS). Link-11 and Link-16 tactical data links, enhanced command and control (C2) capabilities to facilitate real-time, secure, and jam-resistant data (voice, data, imagery, and video) sharing with Navy, Joint, and coalition forces. MIDS JTRS enables simultaneous operation of Link 16 and up to three additional advanced networking waveforms, including Tactical Targeting Networking Technology (TTNT) and Flexible Access Secure Transfer (FAST). MIDS JTRS uses software-defined radio technology to update and adapt to future security and networking requirements.

Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Multifunctional Radar - AN/SPS-75 (Giraffe 4A) is a multi-role medium-range AESA surveillance radar system in three dimensions for naval applications. It provides medium range, simultaneous air and surface surveillance and can be employed in a weapon designation role. AN/SPS-75 uses Agile Multi-Beam (AMB), which includes an integrated Command, control and communication (C3) system. This enables AN/SPS-75 to act as the command and control center in an air defense system. AN/SPS-73(V)18 Next Generation Surface Search Radar (NGSSR) enhances safety and situational awareness while it simultaneously performs navigation, surface search, and periscope detection (PDD). While primarily for navigation, it offers, advanced, limited, low-altitude, short-range, situational awareness against surface and aerial threats. NGSSR is a software-configurable, Agile Multi-Beam (AMD) in the X-band, maritime radar designed to replace legacy systems on U.S. Navy surface combatants.

Forecastle Main Mast - The primary Mark 20 EOSS is located above the bridge. AN/SLQ-32C(V)6 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block II; see below for details. AN/UPX-29(V) Interrogator System for electronic Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) air traffic control. AN/URN-32 Combined Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) Antenna and Beacon Transponder to provide azimuth (bearing) and range (distance) information to aircraft. Rapid Deployment Elevation System (RDES) derived telescopic mast that can extend to a point 200 feet above sea level (ASL) with up to 1200 pounds, and has a structural rating for survival in 80 mph winds.

RDES Mounted Sensors - A secondary Mark 20 EOSS is RDES-mounted. Maximum extension allows for direct Line-of-Sight (LOS) of 18.6 miles; this location enhances naval or land-based situational awareness by significantly increasing the sensor's vertical field of regard and horizon LOS. This combination allows for faster, higher-angle target detection, improved horizon scanning, and enhanced identification capabilities. Elevated sensors offer a better view of congested waterways, shorelines, or urban environments. RDES allows the system to be raised or lowered in minutes, enhancing flexibility in fast-paced operational environments.

Electromagnetic Warfare (EW) Suite - AN/SLQ-32C(V)6 SEWIP aka "SEWIP Lite". EW consists of three major subdivisions: electronic attack (EA), electronic protection (EP), and electronic warfare support (ES). Activities used in EW include electro-optical, infrared and radio frequency countermeasures; Electromagnetic (EM) compatibility and deception; radio jamming, radar jamming and deception and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM aka anti-jamming); electronic masking, probing, reconnaissance, and intelligence; electronic security; EW reprogramming; emission control; spectrum management; and wartime reserve modes.

Signature Reduction - Low visibility paints to reduce visual, ultraviolet, and infrared identification. Over 13 dB Radar Cross Section Reduction (RCSR) and similar audible emissions reduction. A 13 dB radar cross-section (RCS) reduction corresponds to more than a ten-fold (95%) decrease in the reflected power of a target, effectively reducing its radar signature by over one order of magnitude. In practical terms, this means a target becomes much harder to detect, as a 13 dB reduction shrinks the detection range significantly to about 5% compared to an untreated object.

Bow-mounted Sonar - AN/SQQ-89(V)15 integrated Undersea Warfare (USW) Combat System Suite. Computer-controlled, bow-mounted AN/SQS-53C ("Kingfisher") high frequency active and passive sonar with the capabilities to search, detect, classify, localize and track undersea contacts, and to engage and evade submarines, mine-like small objects and torpedo threats. The AN/SQS-53C is most effective for shallow water navigation, object avoidance, and mine warfare. AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar (TACTAS) which is a component of the AN/SQQ-89 sonar suite, is a series of hydrophones towed from a cable several thousand feet behind the ship, that is able to passively detect adversary submarines at a very long range. AN/SQR-19 combines active and passive hydrophone arrays for Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) detect and track capability. Additional towed arrays on deployed Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) and/or from a Seahawk helicopter. AN/UQN-4 Sonar Sounding Set (also known as EDO Model 9057) is a digital depth sounder/fathometer for measuring the depth of water from the ship’s keel to the ocean floor for safe operational navigation. Fathometers are operated from all classes of United States (U.S.) Navy surface ships and are considered Mid-Frequency Active (MFA) sonars. AN/WQC-2 (commonly known as "Gertrude" or "The Underwater Telephone") is a hull-mounted transducers or towed-line array utilized as an Underwater Voice Communication (UVC) system used for secure, short-range, two-way, voice, and Morse code communication between submarines, surface vessels, divers, and other underwater vehicles. AN/SQR-19 slated to be eventually replaced by AN/SQR-20 Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA) and its more advanced TB-37U sensors. AN/SQR-20 and TB-37U offers better performance against quiet diesel-electric Submarine Killers (SSKs) in littoral environments, increased reliability, and reduced obsolescence.

Aviation Support - Chinook and Sea Stallion deck load capacity for efficient Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP). Hangar storage for one Seahawk helicopter and distributed deck moorings to secure up to three helicopters on available deck space. AN/URN-32 Combined Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) Antenna and Beacon Transponder to provide azimuth (bearing) and range (distance) information to aircraft. AN/UPX-29(V) Interrogator System for electronic Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) air traffic control.

Propulsion and Primary Power Generation - Combined diesel–electric and gas (CODLAG) system using one reversible controllable-pitch propeller. A single 7,400 kW (9,900 hp) Fairbanks Morse Defense (formerly Rolls-Royce) 20-cylinder MTU 20V 1163 TB93 diesel engine provides the best power efficiency to provide propulsion and an onboard power supply. An additional two Fairbanks Morse Defense (formerly Rolls-Royce) 20-cylinder nForcer FM 175D engines 3,750 kW (5,000 hp at 1,800 rpm) may be called upon to combined for an additional 14.875 MW of power. Main cruise solely requires diesel–electric power; the mechanical drive train is disengaged with clutches. Eliminating the mechanical connection between engines and propellers has several advantages including increased freedom in placement of the engines, acoustical decoupling of the engines from the hull, which makes the ship less noisy, and a reduction in weight and volume. Reserve diesel–electric and alternative power sources can boost speeds temporarily with minimal acoustic increase using two additional reversible controllable-pitch propellers. For higher speeds, the reserve 22 MW (30,000 hp) General Electric LM2500 gas turbine engine - with clutches engaged - powers the main shaft via a cross-connecting gearbox. The LM2500 gas turbine is available to quickly respond to increases in dynamic power demands and it can spool up to full power in under 5 minutes. In an emergency the gas turbine can effective propel the ship on its power alone. Reserve diesel engines may take between 20-30 minutes to bring the them up to an efficient rotational speed, and all three diesel–electrics are necessary for an 18 knot cruise speed. The 7,280 kW (9,760 hp at 1,000 rpm) Fairbanks Morse 16V28/33D STC diesel engine may substitute for the MTU 20V 1163 TB93, but maximum cruise speed will drop a up to half a knot.

Auxiliary Power Generation - Integrated electric propulsion (IEP). Two reserve diesel–electric engine and a gas turbine provide for auxiliary electrical generation to meet dynamic energy demands. Some soft storage capacity for transitioning. Distributed hull-mounted bifacial solar cell (BSC) panels, connected to limited battery storage, boosts the daily electrical generation during fair weather. BSCs may provide between 20-30% of energy demands for daytime travel at cruise speeds. The trash incinerator, or Waste-to-Energy (WtE) system, provides minor electrical generation at a rate of about 500 to 600 kWh of electricity per ton of waste incinerated. Retractable bow thrusters for dock maneuvers.

Operational Speed - 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph) maximum speed. Hull design for cruise speed of 18 knots.

Endurance - Expected range of 12,000 nautical miles (22,000 km; 14,000 mi) at a 16 knot cruise under diesel–electric engine power alone. Provisional storage for 60-75 duty cycles of an expected minimum 150 day deployment. This includes up to 30,000 gallons (125 tons) of drinkable and potable fresh water, volume equivalent to 17 "twenty-foot equivalent unit" (abbreviated TEU; approximately 20,000 cubic feet) of provisional dry storage concealed in weather-tight containers stored under the deck cover space, and an addition 2 TEU (of approximately 2,500 cubic feet) of mixed storage facilities distributed across internal compartments.

Replenishment - Underway replenishment (UNREP - for Solid, Liquid, Ammunition) and VERTREP (for Solid, Ammunition) capable. Supplies may also be delivered through the LARS, telescoping and swiveling davit locations, and mooring access points at the ship fantails.

Child Vessels - Ability to launch and recover a mixture of manned and/or unmanned child vessels (RHIBs, tenders, Ghost Shark UUV, or minisubmarines). An internal boat bay with weather-tight external doors for dry stack storage of up to four 10 meter child vessels (RHIBs/UUVs). One high-sea-state stern launching ramp (LARS aka "float-in garage") for up to one 25 meter boat; designed to launch and recover smaller craft while in motion or in high seas. This LARS is specifically designed to handle one Combatant Craft Medium, Mark1 (CCM). The stern ramp allows for the launch and recovery of boats without the mother vessel having to come to a complete halt. The garage keeps child vessels secured and protected from the elements, as opposed to being stored on an open deck. Mooring for CCM located on ship fantails located near trailing edges along each side of hull. Two boat cradles located above-deck on the stern with capacity for up to 10 meter child vessels facilitates transfers from dry stack storage to the sea surface.

Utility Cranes - One aft-mounted telescoping and swiveling davit (12-ton capacity hydraulic crane), and one 11-ton capacity telescoping and swiveling davit (electrical crane) located inside each side of internal boat bay. Cranes are for launch/recovery of a Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB), UUV, or Combatant Craft Assault (CCA); replenishment; or deployment of sea mines. Weather-tight gangway (narrow passage used to board or disembark ships) connects the LARS well to the center of the ship. Two internal winches on a fixed gantry atop shaft spaces for moving palletized supplies through internal spaces; one of which can be used to transfer up to a 10 meter child vessel from the LARS well to internal boat bay space.

Poke it to pieces.

edit: FF(X) not FFG(X)
 
Last edited:
With the Chinese adding hypersonic torpedo tube launched ASM to the type39 now, enough VLS for sm6 or later sm2 blocks is now the minimum bar for entry. Similarly a more capable very high mounted non rotating radar to have chance of detection before impact for anything that’s going to operating outside of AWACs coverage.

You also should not have so many different VLS types plus angled launchers. Much better to have just MK41 and/or MK57 so that you can better mix and match missile types and engage on both sides of the ship with all missiles. It’s also better to just build in the VLS into the hull rather than use stanflex from a reaction time, seakeeping, RCS, and mass efficiency perspective.

I’m unclear what you’re trying to accomplish with AIM-120 and AIM-9 launchers that essm + searam + guns won’t do. Also the way they are mounted will also compromise RCS and will have limited firing arcs.

Regarding drones, unless you’re within 10-20miles of shore I wouldn’t expect more than 2-3 drones at once and your ciws, laser, and main gun will be able to handle significantly more

Propulsion wise, you should go to something larger than the LM2500 such as MT-30 to accommodate the larger radar, DEW, and growth margin. You may also need more diesel power to run the radars + cruise at 18-20kn with cargo ship convoys. I’m highly highly skeptical solar panels will do very much to help ship power requirements, and will greatly increase ship RCS.

Regarding RCS I believe overhead RCS reduction will also important to try and hide from satellites but I don’t think that will be very feasible

Link to the hypersonics https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...killer-missiles-aboard-chinas-aip-submarines/
 
Last edited:
The point of offering flexibility in angled and VLS is to allow focuses in capability. One could use a flexible jack of all trades layout, or go heavy in one direction or another. Having the ability to focus on air defense, either at a higher end ESSM anti fast movers or lower Hellfire antidrone level, creates further focus on a particular mission. If Mark 56 and the Stanflex strategy could support non-ESSM options for land attack or surface warfare, that would help. Tactical Mark 41 certainly is a better VLS, but it also soaks up space and money.

The angled launchers offer quite a few existing options where investment in common mounting between Army and Navy weapons would pay off in land strike capability. NASAMS is another program they need to lean on as unmanned and auxiliary vessels could carry launchers to spread a wide web of coverage. This is why Giraffe 4A would be better than Giraffe 1.

Irregular warfare capability is one particular focus that is a no brainer. Frigates have been the presence asset since the age of sail, and being able to land people into local environments should not require floating sea bases or major task groups. The transom of a ship being able to accept smaller vessels adds significantly to these missions, which is why Independence class ships should be kept in action imho.
 
Last edited:
The point of offering flexibility in angled and VLS is to allow focuses in capability. One could use a flexible jack of all trades layout, or go heavy in one direction or another. Having the ability to focus on air defense, either at a higher end ESSM anti fast movers or lower Hellfire antidrone level, creates further focus on a particular mission. If Mark 56 and the Stanflex strategy could support non-ESSM options for land attack or surface warfare, that would help. Tactical Mark 41 certainly is a better VLS, but it also soaks up space and money.
What a nightmare for logistics, lots of random small systems with a few rounds each that all need their own reloads stored somewhere. Mk56 was relevant for FFX but you are talking about this as an updated FFGX replacement. If tactical Mk-41 wont fit, go for SD Mk-41, im sure lockheed hasn't forgotten to build it. A navy needs some things standardised, so for example they develop a way to reload Mk-41 at sea and that becomes available across the fleet.

I doubt Phalanx is worthy of becoming the ubiquitous CIWS again, bit long in the tooth. Generally it needs to fire an airburst projectile, and there are tradeoffs about deck penetration vs reloading from deck magazine lockers. Its a discussion for all ships in the fleet, is 30mm bushmaster the solution (reliable) and/or is there a need for bigger mounts with different features. CIWS now has to deal with a potential drone swarm as well as last ditch missile defence. And i am sure there are people whos only job is to figure out what sort of enemy drone carrier will make it possible.
The angled launchers offer quite a few existing options where investment in common mounting between Army and Navy weapons would pay off in land strike capability. NASAMS is another program they need to lean on as unmanned and auxiliary vessels could carry launchers to spread a wide web of coverage. This is why Giraffe 4A would be better than Giraffe 1.
NASAMS should be able to handle whichever radar is chosen, its supposed to be a flexible system. However, being angled air defence launchers, they are taking the spot reserved for other angled AD launchers like RAM.

The choice of weapon or sensor flows from its purpose, which should be defined broadly before specifying details. Need VSHORAD for supersonic missiles? RAM might be the choice. A bit more range for layered defence? ESSM and SM2 are currently the goto across the fleet, and already integrated with naval CMS. Need radar as high as possible for sea skimmers? An X band rotator maybe. Need more range and capacity? Another radar lower on the mast. Compromise with fixed face X band if preferred to give a multifunction system including gunfire control. Angled lland attack aunchers to replace the default NSM? There might be a case for that, but somebody has to argue that case and match it to the defensive requirements of getting into position to use it. Maybe its about being versatile, but is this the new LCS replacement as a shore bombardment platform?
Irregular warfare capability is one particular focus that is a no brainer. Frigates have been the presence asset since the age of sail, and being able to land people into local environments should not require floating sea bases or major task groups. The transom of a ship being able to accept smaller vessels adds significantly to these missions, which is why Independence class ships should be kept in action imimho.
Bring back the stern ramp? Maybe more valuable than a containerised launcher that may get deleted to launch boats?
And slowly it would become more of a constellation and less of a legend as scope creeps.
Legend was never a survivable warship anyway. Constellation was what Navy wanted in a frigate.
 
Last edited:
If people are going on about FFG(X) then take your argument there, please.
What a nightmare for logistics, lots of random small systems with a few rounds wach that all need their own reloads stored somewhere. Mk56 was relevant for FFX but you are talking about this as an updated FFGX replacement.
Jesus, FF(X). Not FFG(X). Neither Mk48 nor Mk56 would turn a frigate magically into a guided missile frigate. These are lightweight cells to place on what are considered non-guided missile warships. No SPY radar was mentioned, the U.S. Navy's current guided missile warship standard.
 
Last edited:
If people are going on about FFG(X) then take your argument there, please.

Jesus, FF(X). Not FFG(X). Neither Mk48 nor Mk56 would turn a frigate magically into a guided missile frigate. These are lightweight cells to place on what are considered non-guided missile warships. No SPY radar was mentioned, the U.S. Navy's current guided missile warship standard.
What is said about the FFGX applies equally to FFX. As I as many others believe the FFX is a more or less useless ship and FFGX to be the minimal bar for entry.

You also wouldn’t get what you described to fit on the NCS and the deletion of the stern ramp as mentioned is very questionable.

Also an mentioned angled launchers are bad for AAW due to both lag time to launch and also weather limitations
 
Last edited:
What is said about the FFGX applies equally to FFX. As I as many others believe the FFX is a more or less useless ship and FFGX to be the minimal bar for entry.
Then talk about it in the other thread. The repeated talk about FF(X) not being FFG(X) is irrelevant and trolling at this point. FF(X) exists. Get over it.

You also wouldn’t get what you described to fit on the NCS and the deletion of the stern ramp as mentioned is very questionable.
You do not make sense. There are ships in the same weight class as the Legend class cutter that already carry similar things.

Also an mentioned angled launchers are bad for AAW due to both lag time to launch and also weather limitations
Cite a source, because this simply is not supported from anything I have read.
 
Last edited:
Then talk about it in the other thread. The repeated talk about FF(X) not being FFG(X) is irrelevant and trolling at this point. FF(X) exists. Get over it.


You do not make sense. There are ships in the same weight class as the Legend class cutter that already carry similar things.


Cite a source, because this simply is not supported from anything I have read.
I believe it's perfectly valid conversation. Especially if you're talking about your desired loadout for a new USN frigate.

Which ships have the same class of capabilities. The other ships I see don't have the same range, crew accommodation spaciousness, and were designed for that from the get go. Your desire for a LARS ramp directly conflicts with both the stanflex modules (there's no where to put them) and towed array requirements. The stanflex modules also directly conflict with the requirement of being able to secure 3 helicopters on the deck.

With the currently available deck spec on the NSC, I'm having a hard time seeing where the 8 NSM would go after you've mounted the 12 ESSM sized MK56 VLS in the designed for location. This is also 12 missiles not the 24 you want as discussed earlier in the thread.

This appears to be a very ASW focused design, yet it doesn't have the ability to fit any ASROC.

On top of all this you want an internal water-tight boat bay for 4x 10m long class UUV along with handling and recovery equipment for ~20t UUV.

Finally you want to rip out the propulsion setup and redesign the ship for IEP which is a large portion of the way to designing a new ship.

If you wanted a novel ship design maybe you could fit all of this in, but it would be a larger ship than the NSC and you definitely won't be able to retrofit it into the NSC.

I was thinking you wanted to use the Typhon launchers upon re-read it wasn't mentioned. However you still have 1/2 your missiles not being useful for threats coming from the opposite side of the ship.
 
Last edited:
I believe it's perfectly valid conversation. Especially if you're talking about your desired loadout for a new USN frigate.
Whether FF(X) can defend itself is relevant. Its a light frigate, but some form of VLS is pretty much minimum requirement for any "FF". Maybe in future it will mean line of sight defences like big lasers vs an "FFG" having any missiles at all. For now everything needs some air defence missiles.
Which ships have the same class of capabilities. The other ships I see don't have the same range, crew accommodation spaciousness, and were designed for that from the get go. Your desire for a LARS ramp directly conflicts with both the stanflex modules (there's no where to put them) and towed array requirements. The stanflex modules also directly conflict with the requirement of being able to secure 3 helicopters on the deck.
The ship should have been designed around stanflex if that was going to be a feature. What uses the limited stern real estate is going to be a compromise anyway since we have an OPV thats trying to evolve into a frigate. I would say towed array is highest priority, and then being able to launch a functional USV. Probably angled AShM launchers would be next.
With the currently available deck spec on the NSC, I'm having a hard time seeing where the 8 NSM would go after you've mounted the 12 ESSM sized MK56 VLS in the designed for location. This is also 12 missiles not the 24 you want as discussed earlier in the thread.
NSM is currently competing for space with everything else you would want on the stern. It may or may not get a spot. Or it might be important enough to cancel the whole concept.
This appears to be a very ASW focused design, yet it doesn't have the ability to fit any ASROC.
It has zero ASW capability until you put a helo in the hangar. If it can't take a tactical Mk-41 then you cant load the ASROC. No suprise.
On top of all this you want an internal water-tight boat bay for 4x 10m long class UUV along with handling and recovery equipment for ~20t UUV.
Arguably something that could add more value to the fleet than anything else you could put on it.
Finally you want to rip out the propulsion setup and redesign the ship for IEP which is a large portion of the way to designing a new ship.
Yes, why would you start from the NSC if you want a warship, but here we are.
 
...
If you wanted a novel ship design maybe you could fit all of this in, but it would be a larger ship than the NSC and you definitely won't be able to retrofit it into the NSC.
The whole point of that laundry list was options. NSC has two hulls on order. Its not a done deal that what comes out in the first two will reflect any others. At this point you are destructing the list. So fair points if you think they cannot fit. Propose options and form a constructive debate.

Legend class is an offshoot of a thirty year old Gibbs & Cox design. NSC was one of the less capable designs. Also realize there has been a fair number of the same family of design loaded down heavier than my proposals. Things like deck strengthening to land Chinooks for supplies is not to be confused with operating them from the ship.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom