Jump to content


Photo

Usn Frigate Program


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#1 Ol Paint

Ol Paint

    Wing-Nut

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,736 posts

Posted 30 April 2020 - 1727 PM

Per Defense.gov:

 

Marinette Marine Corp., Marinette, Wisconsin, is awarded a $795,116,483 fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract for detail design and construction (DD&C) of the FFG(X) class of guided-missile frigates, with additional firm-fixed-price and cost reimbursement line items.  The contract with options will provide for the delivery of up to 10 FFG(X) ships, post-delivery availability support, engineering and class services, crew familiarization, training equipment and provisioned item orders.  If all options are exercised, the cumulative value of this contract will be $5,576,105,441.  Work will be performed at multiple locations, including Marinette, Wisconsin (52%); Boston, Massachusetts (10%); Crozet, Virginia (8%); New Orleans, Louisiana (7%); New York, New York (6%); Washington, D.C. (6%), Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin (3%), Prussia, Pennsylvania (3%), Minneapolis, Minnesota (2%); Cincinnati, Ohio (1%); Atlanta, Georgia (1%); and Chicago, Illinois (1%).  The base contract includes the DD&C of the first FFG(X) ship and separately priced options for nine additional ships.  The FFG(X) will have multi-mission capability to conduct air warfare, anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, and electronic warfare and information operations.  FFG(X) represents the evolution of the Navy's small surface combatant, with increased lethality, survivability and improved capability to support the National Defense Strategy across the full range of military operations in the current security environment.  Work is expected to be complete by May 2035, if all options are exercised.  Fiscal 2020 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $795,116,483 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website and four offers were received.  The Navy conducted this competition using a tradeoff process to determine the proposal representing the best value, based on the evaluation of non-price factors in conjunction with price.  The Navy made the best value determination by considering the relative importance of evaluation factors as set forth in the solicitation, where the non-price factors of design and design maturity and objective performance (to achieve warfighting capability) were approximately equal and each more important than remaining factors.  The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-20-C-2300).

 

Contract issued, so here's the thread to discuss, complain, and prognosticate.

 

Douglas


  • 0

#2 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,147 posts

Posted 30 April 2020 - 1804 PM

FREMM won ,a modified one.  This will end up replacing partially the Arleigh Burkes and their obsolescent propulsion and manning.

 

https://news.usni.or...frigate-program


Edited by lucklucky, 30 April 2020 - 1806 PM.

  • 0

#3 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,677 posts

Posted 30 April 2020 - 2050 PM

The Navy seems to have learned its lesson from the LCS, and went for a real, though small, warship.  This reminds me more of the Perry class frigates.  Maybe this is also a good time to re-classify surface combatants; LCS to frigates, these new frigates to destroyers, then the Burkes to light cruisers, with Ticos and Zumwalts becoming heavy cruisers.


Edited by shep854, 30 April 2020 - 2051 PM.

  • 0

#4 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0137 AM

SPY-6 and 32 VLS cells, according to this. That makes it nearly as capable as many countries' destroyers.

https://www.defensen...LjxpdA.facebook


  • 0

#5 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,982 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0146 AM

A frigate probably shouldnt be heavily armed. If it is, you arent going to be buying a lot of them, the primary reason for having them.

 

I shouldn't be cynical, but as the USN has managed to screw up the procurement of damn near every new platform since the cold war, its not entirely misplaced either.


  • 0

#6 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,380 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0208 AM

After picking up a bunch of LCSs' and many Ticonderoga cruisers with little life left with no successor cruiser on the way, spending a bit more on the frigates to mount 32 VLS instead of 16 might be worthwhile.
  • 0

#7 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0211 AM

I suppose you could also argue that by using an existing radar and combat system, the development and integration costs should be essentially nothing.


  • 0

#8 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,380 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0218 AM

I was curious about SPY-6 though. IIRC, it wluld be very heavy and very energy hungry because of GaN use, drastically increase sensitivity. It seems a modified SPY-6 is to be used. Using the same scale as planned for the Burke would increase displacement on the frigate a lot and in order to mount it, hull dimensions would also need to increase. But there are smaller versions of SPY-1 used by other ships, the F and K versions. So if the mentioned modify SPY-6 is of similar small size, then increasing hull size and displacement might be avoidable.
  • 0

#9 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0324 AM

Displacement-wise, at around 6,000 tons, a FREMM is pretty much the same as an Álvaro de Bazán class frigate or a Hobart class destroyer. These are all big frigate designs.

 

F-102_Almirante_Juan_de_Borbon_CSSQT.jpg


Edited by Adam_S, 01 May 2020 - 0325 AM.

  • 0

#10 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,712 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0442 AM

32 VLS gives you plenty of self defence for a frigate - you could go 8*4 ESSM and the rest whatever the current MR missile is for a total 56, although I'm not sure what the ASM solution is going to be here. Might take up some cells.
  • 0

#11 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,982 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0504 AM

If you want plenty of self defence, go buy a Destroyer. They already have dozens of Arleigh Burkes coming out of their ears.

 

So they are getting a ship that is only 800 tons shy of an Arleigh Burke, has half the missiles and reportedly less than half the cost per unit, and  will be in the water in 6 years. Thats pretty ambitious.


  • 0

#12 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,342 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0509 AM

If you want plenty of self defence, go buy a Destroyer. They already have dozens of Arleigh Burkes coming out of their ears.

 

So they are getting a ship that is only 800 tons shy of an Arleigh Burke, has half the missiles and reportedly less than half the cost per unit, and  will be in the water in 6 years. Thats pretty ambitious.

 

Yep, that's the thing, what's the point of going for 50% capability at 75% of cost, when a production line is established and running healthily


  • 0

#13 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,712 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0524 AM

You need something that has half the Manning requirement and which is therefore cheaper to run.

None of this argument is new, and if money grew on trees everything would be high end.

What does this mean for Austal?
  • 0

#14 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,982 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0540 AM

The Wiki page on FREMM is quite interesting. I guess we can rule out that they will be using ASTER? You wonder what integrating new launch cells and putting a new radar on it is going to do for the cost.

https://en.wikipedia...purpose_frigate


  • 0

#15 Hellfish6

Hellfish6

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,698 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0632 AM

ESSM (quadpacked) is expected to be the main SAM system. The VLS are not Strike-length (so no Tomahawks, SM-3/6 or VLS LSRASM) and may have the capability for VLASROC and SM-2. The FREMM design has been rendered with and can fit at least 16x cells for NSM (or Harpoon) which is a pretty nice punch. The latest gen ESSMs are capable of area air defense, too, not just local.


Edited by Hellfish6, 01 May 2020 - 0633 AM.

  • 0

#16 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0705 AM

Given the desire for a multi-role platform and the proliferation of advanced AshMs and the platforms for delivering these, a higher number of VLS cells than on legacy frigate designs makes good sense.


Edited by Daan, 01 May 2020 - 0708 AM.

  • 0

#17 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,855 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 0812 AM

Presumably the Naval Strike Missile will be an armament option?


  • 0

#18 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,380 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 1059 AM

Presumably the Naval Strike Missile will be an armament option?

This CG suggest it can have a fair amount of NSM.

ffgcg.jpg

https://www.navy.mil...story_id=112820


  • 0

#19 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,855 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 1101 AM

And the 57mm gun:

 

https://futurefrigat...specifications/


  • 0

#20 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,380 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 1111 AM

Modified version of SPY-6 is definately smaller on it than what's meant for the Burke.
  • 0