Jump to content


Photo

Usn Frigate Program


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#141 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,391 posts

Posted 13 May 2020 - 0025 AM

I suspect politics has a fair game to play, though I personally would have no problem to have USN ships contracted and built in Japan.

Using the small SPY-6 radars and associated US combat system into Akizuki/Asahi-class ship may suit the bill for a new frigate. 6,800 ton full combat weight, 32 VLS with ESSM, 127mmL62, COGLAG propulsion, Type 17 SSM (to be introduced with JS Maya), 200-220 crew, hanger for 1 heli.


Edited by JasonJ, 13 May 2020 - 0032 AM.

  • 0

#142 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,992 posts

Posted 13 May 2020 - 0812 AM

I like the FFGX, but the US is going to have to retire a lot of ships soon if the Flight I/II Burkes don't get SLEP'd. Is there any kind of delivery schedule available for the project? I know when the first is supposed to hit the water, but how many per year do they expect to produce? One? Two?


  • 0

#143 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,391 posts

Posted 13 May 2020 - 0852 AM

I like the FFGX, but the US is going to have to retire a lot of ships soon if the Flight I/II Burkes don't get SLEP'd. Is there any kind of delivery schedule available for the project? I know when the first is supposed to hit the water, but how many per year do they expect to produce? One? Two?


On page 5 and 6 are 5-year and 30-year ship building plans in the document linked in the earlier post: http://www.tank-net....=5#entry1479295

In the 5 year plan, setting out the funds for procurement goes from 1 FFGX for last year and this year, 2 ships in the following years, and 3 for 2025. The 30 plan is last years and may not reflect the 3 in the 5 year plan's 3 ships for 2025 but for the 30 years, it has 2 SSCs (small surface combatants) going for the whole 30 years. The graphs are about the 355 goal and the document says the goal does not include unmanned surface ships. So assuming that the LCS production will end soon, that leaves only the FFGX and whatever successor design, 2 each year for 30 years. So at a rate of 2 a year over the long term, production would generally have to be kept at the same rate as procurement. That seems to be their thinking going by it.
  • 0

#144 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 13 May 2020 - 1033 AM

I like the FFGX, but the US is going to have to retire a lot of ships soon if the Flight I/II Burkes don't get SLEP'd. Is there any kind of delivery schedule available for the project? I know when the first is supposed to hit the water, but how many per year do they expect to produce? One? Two?

 

It will be interesting to see how many they do end up producing, as it will be an indicator of their urgency level in various ways.


  • 0

#145 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,857 posts

Posted 13 May 2020 - 1036 AM

What are the odds of a clean-sheet-of-paper DD design?


  • 0

#146 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,992 posts

Posted 13 May 2020 - 1354 PM

 

I like the FFGX, but the US is going to have to retire a lot of ships soon if the Flight I/II Burkes don't get SLEP'd. Is there any kind of delivery schedule available for the project? I know when the first is supposed to hit the water, but how many per year do they expect to produce? One? Two?

 

It will be interesting to see how many they do end up producing, as it will be an indicator of their urgency level in various ways.

 

 

They already wanted to bid out twenty of these, so a second flight of this or something like it is all but guranteed. I suspect however there will be 30-40 of these ships eventually so long as the drive train is sound and the hull can support future power needs.


  • 0

#147 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,992 posts

Posted 13 May 2020 - 1358 PM

What are the odds of a clean-sheet-of-paper DD design?

 

No time soon. Burke III is the next destroyer; the other major combatant is a cruiser sized hull and the USN can't decide what they want to do with it. If the Burke 3 is anything to go by, the amount of power required just for the desired radar will be extreme, to say nothing of any directed energy weapons. In fact given the power requirement of the SPY-6 V(1), you have to wonder if you couldn't use it as a DEW at very short ranges.


  • 0

#148 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,994 posts

Posted 13 May 2020 - 1436 PM

It it getting to the point when nuclear powered cruisers start looking a good idea again?

Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 13 May 2020 - 1436 PM.

  • 0

#149 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 13 May 2020 - 2124 PM

It may be getting to the point where do-everything surface combatants are not, in terms of cost.


  • 0

#150 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,685 posts

Posted 18 May 2020 - 1335 PM

Maybe First-Rate and Second-Rate??


  • 0

#151 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,714 posts

Posted 19 May 2020 - 0453 AM

High and low mix is a strategic choice that's as old as navy budgets.
  • 0

#152 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,391 posts

Posted 12 July 2020 - 0437 AM

I like the FFGX, but the US is going to have to retire a lot of ships soon if the Flight I/II Burkes don't get SLEP'd. Is there any kind of delivery schedule available for the project? I know when the first is supposed to hit the water, but how many per year do they expect to produce? One? Two?


On page 5 and 6 are 5-year and 30-year ship building plans in the document linked in the earlier post: http://www.tank-net....=5#entry1479295
In the 5 year plan, setting out the funds for procurement goes from 1 FFGX for last year and this year, 2 ships in the following years, and 3 for 2025. The 30 plan is last years and may not reflect the 3 in the 5 year plan's 3 ships for 2025 but for the 30 years, it has 2 SSCs (small surface combatants) going for the whole 30 years. The graphs are about the 355 goal and the document says the goal does not include unmanned surface ships. So assuming that the LCS production will end soon, that leaves only the FFGX and whatever successor design, 2 each year for 30 years. So at a rate of 2 a year over the long term, production would generally have to be kept at the same rate as procurement. That seems to be their thinking going by it.

New document says they want 20 of them. 18 of which by 2034.
https://news.usni.or...ffgx-program-10
  • 0

#153 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 12 July 2020 - 1259 PM

I suspect politics has a fair game to play, though I personally would have no problem to have USN ships contracted and built in Japan.

 

I would not either, but if the size of the Toyota Motor Works complex in Kentucky is any indication, Washington might not agree. Have you driven a Ford/seen Detroit, lately?


  • 0

#154 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,369 posts

Posted 12 July 2020 - 1622 PM

I rather like the FREMM design but I feel like the USN is missing a good opportunity to put a 5" (127mm) up front and then the 57mm above the hanger. Some of the Italian ones have such a layout although they use the OTO-Melara 76mm instead of the Bofors 57mm.

Considering all of the focus the threat of small boats gets these days a 5" is going to be a lot more useful than a few .50 caliber MGs added as an afterthought.


  • 0

#155 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,335 posts

Posted 12 July 2020 - 1656 PM

An automatic six pounder will be very effective indeed in that role along with missiles and a helo.

Edited by R011, 12 July 2020 - 1658 PM.

  • 0

#156 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,992 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:58 PM

I rather like the FREMM design but I feel like the USN is missing a good opportunity to put a 5" (127mm) up front and then the 57mm above the hanger. Some of the Italian ones have such a layout although they use the OTO-Melara 76mm instead of the Bofors 57mm.

Considering all of the focus the threat of small boats gets these days a 5" is going to be a lot more useful than a few .50 caliber MGs added as an afterthought.

 

There is no shortage of 5" guns in the USN. It is a tertiary weapon system and not a big issue either way. A second gun aft seems truly pointless, and additionally I think the 57mm has enough deck penetration that there is no way it could be mounted above the hanger. In terms of point of defense, RAM is a vastly superior point defense system and that is a greater need than any gun system.


  • 0

#157 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,369 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:02 PM

 


There is no shortage of 5" guns in the USN. It is a tertiary weapon system and not a big issue either way. A second gun aft seems truly pointless, and additionally I think the 57mm has enough deck penetration that there is no way it could be mounted above the hanger. In terms of point of defense, RAM is a vastly superior point defense system and that is a greater need than any gun system.

 

I may be overestimating the utility of the naval gun but against small craft in littoral waters it seems like they would be more useful than otherwise. I know there are many roles planned for these frigates but wasn't one of them doing the same missions LCS was supposed to be capable of?

 

I'd be surprised if the 57mm had more deck penetration than the Italian 76mm but I suppose that space below deck might used for something else in FFG(X).

 

aft%2Bgun%2Bturret.jpg


  • 0