Constellation class FFG(X)-US Future Frigate program

[Haijun watcher]

This frigate program will be a design that's more powerful than the LCS:

Janes

USN expects first delivery of Future Frigate in 2024
Anika Torruella, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
27 June 2017

Factors include more challenging threats and Future Frigate relevancy to a distributed maritime operational concept
USN will look to build LCSs continuously until Future Frigate delivery in 2024

US Navy (USN) leadership stated that delivery of its first Future Frigate, intended to provide multimission capability and increased survivability over the design of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), was unlikely to occur before 2024.

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral John Richardson and acting secretary of the navy Sean Stackley explained that by the time the USN defined the requirements for the Future Frigate, worked with industry to find out what is possible technologically and within cost and schedule, defined potential risk, started design, and requested proposals in 2018 that an award by 2020 was "an aggressive target".

(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

Defense News

Frigate competition wide open: US Navy specs reveal major design shift
By: David B. Larter, July 10, 2017
WASHINGTON � The U.S. Navy is looking for inputs from industry on a new multimission guided-missile frigate adapted from existing ship designs, a major departure from its modular littoral combat ship, according to a request for information released Monday.

The RFI lays out a ship that opens the door to almost any existing design that can be adapted to the Navy�s needs, which extends beyond just the two LCS hull forms being built by Lockheed Martin and Austal USA.

The service is looking for a ship with combat and mechanical systems that will fully integrate with a carrier strike group, hunt submarines and kill ships over the horizon. Labeling the ship the FFG(X), the ship will be expected to keep up with the full carrier strike group and be able to operate independently in high-end threat environments.

(...SNIPPED)

[Timmy C]

Direct link to the Request for Information with what the Navy expects the frigate to do, as well as a notional weapons system outfit: http://snagfilms-a.akamaihd.net/d7/e7/9 ... 8r2300.pdf

ffx notional systems.JPG

They are also open to the idea of swapping out some of these for a VLS - strike length, even:

ffx vls.JPG

A VLS with anti-air missiles would, in my estimation, be essential to meet the requirement for the frigate's ability to "robustly defend itself during conduct of independent operations" in a high-end threat environment.

[SumGui]

Beat me to it...

Reads as pulling what we have in service or pending and installing it on a modified existing hullform.

EASR v2:
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/easr/

Curious if there will be interest in moving the main gun mount up to Mk 45 considering the new ammunition soon available (Excalibur N5/VULCANO), as they are more likely to allow this platform to get in a position to use that capability and hold the Burke's back. They do allow for the vendors including talking price/capability points, so maybe the right thing here is to have a mount that could take the Mk45, and let the Government decide what to put there (its GFE anyway...)

I don't see a way this does not have ESSM to complete the missions described, and the best way to do that right now with an extant system is the Mk41 VLS - which then gives you other options.

Speed may be an issue, as a sustained 28 knots might mean a two GT, two Diesel configuration (CODAG/CODOG), and many of the potential candidates for modification (Bertholf, for example) only have a single GT. Of course, that second GT helps damage resistance (two complete separate machinery units) and power generation, so really probably worth the effort there.

The low Endurance number (3500nm) will be easy for all to achieve.

[Admiral John Byng]

Strange ship! It looks like muddled thinking to me. They are trying to pack a lot into a relatively small hull with very limited endurance. I can see this spiralling into a big frigate which is equipped for all eventualities but at great expense. They need to work out what they want the ship to do and then configure it for that.

Of course they must not do what the RN did with the Type 42 and make a ship that is so mission specific it does not have space or weight for self defence systems!

[Haijun watcher]

Defense News

Exclusive interview: The Navy's surface warfare director talks frigate requirements
By: David B. Larter, July 11, 2017
WASHINGTON � The U.S. Navy's requirements for a new guided-missile frigate hit the street Monday with a request for information that blew the competition for the new ship design wide open.

The ship will be expected to use systems already widely in use in the fleet, be able to keep up with the carrier and network into the strike group. The Navy hopes to drive the cost down by using common equipment, saving money on integration of new systems into existing designs, and that could be anything from the two littoral combat ship designs in production today to a foreign design such as the British Royal Navy's Type 26 global combat ship.

The man in the hot seat for creating the requirements for the frigate is the Navy's director of surface warfare, Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall, head of the Chief of Naval Operations N96 office.

Defense News got an exclusive interview with Boxall to discuss what the Navy wants from its future small surface combatant, that it hopes to start buying in 2020.

(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

Defense News

Experts question the US Navy�s ideas for a new frigate
By: David B. Larter ? 3 days ago

WASHINGTON � A panel of analysts raised questions Tuesday about the U.S. Navy�s recent request for information from industry on a new frigate that it wants to begin buying in fiscal year 2020.

In a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, several noted experts called into question the U.S. Navy�s underlying analysis in the kind of frigate its looking for to replace its beleaguered littoral combat ship, or LCS, program.

In early July, the U.S. Navy released an RFI seeking a mature design that can be adapted to couple with combat and mechanical systems already in wide use in the U.S. Navy and can fully integrate with a carrier strike group. Among the capabilities the U.S. Navy wanted in its FFG(X) was the ability hunt submarines, kill ships over the horizon and operate independently in high-end threat environments, which would mean a robust counter-missile capability.


(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

Navy Recognition

European Naval Shipbuilders Weighing their Options for US Navy FFG(X) Program

Most major European naval shipbuilding companies are closely reviewing their options for the U.S. Navy FFG(X) program. Contacted by Navy Recognition, BAE Systems (United Kingdom), Naval Group (France), Fincantieri (Italy) and Navantia (Spain) acknowledged looking at the RFI. TKMS (Germany) and Damen (Netherlands) didn't return phone calls or emails.

(...SNIPPED)

[InchHigh]

I keep thinking through what you'd want in an FFG(X). Structural steel is the cheapest part of the design. Larger hulls provide enhanced survivability, improved seakeeping, a helo deck, better habitability, etc. Smaller is not in and of itself a major asset and should not be a be a design goal. The major costs are in the sensors and weapons, those allow you to perform the missions assigned. The design should be focused on putting mission capabilities to sea, not on putting hulls to sea. Typical surface warfare capabilities revolve around the following major areas:

ASuW
ASW
AAW
NGFS / Strike

So the question becomes what missions will the FFG(X) be expected to perform? If low cost / small hull becomes the design's determining factor, you wind up with the LCS - still expensive but cheaper than a DDG and without the ability to perform any of the major surface warfare missions. At the other end of the spectrum are the Burkes which are capable of performing missions within all the major surface warfare areas but more expensive.

I hope we don't end up with a design that's 2/3 of the cost of a Burke but only 1/3 as capable, but that's a very real possibility. It may be better to simply increase the build rate of the Burkes.

[navydavesof]

Perhaps it can be an FFG doing FFG things. Ie ASW as its big mission area. No area AAW, only self defense. No strike. No NSFS. Yes ASuW with 8-16 Harpoons is easy enough. Yes ISR with good sensors and UAVs such as ScanEagle and Shadow. This is not hard.

[navydavesof]

Perhaps it can be an FFG doing FFG things. Ie ASW as its big mission area. No area AAW, only self defense. No strike. No NSFS. Yes ASuW with 8-16 Harpoons is easy enough. Yes ISR with good sensors and UAVs such as ScanEagle and Shadow. This is not hard.

Also what I would illustrate is that something as small as a Gearing FRAM II-class DD could perform this ASW mission without problem. I would suggest an FF hull could be used for 2 different mission sets. One would be an American version of the PRC Jiangkia-class FFG. At 440' and 32-cell VLS with ASCMs and a helo hangar, it could work out pretty well.

Perhaps it can be an FFG doing FFG things. Ie ASW as its big mission area. No area AAW, only self defense. No strike. No NSFS. Yes ASuW with 8-16 Harpoons is easy enough. Yes ISR with good sensors and UAVs such as ScanEagle and Shadow. This is not hard.

Also what I would illustrate is that something as small as a Gearing FRAM II-class DD could perform this ASW mission without problem. I would suggest an FF hull could be used for 2 different mission sets. One would be an American version of the PRC Jiangkia-class FFG. At 440' and 32-cell VLS with ASCMs and a helo hangar, it could work out pretty well.

Using the same hull, an AAW version could use the same forward fit but would be a modern version of the Leahy-class CG. In place of the helo hangar would be an aft structure for radar and illuminators and a 64-cell Mk41 VLS. Perhaps there is room for a 76mm gun aft. We will see.

On the note of the Leahy/Belknap, there could have been replacement of the Mk10 launchers with Mk71 8" guns and 32 and 64-cell Mk41 launchers.


Only if the USN was serious about NGFS and NSFS, we could have had a good force of 8" gun ships with TLAM, ASCM, and SAM capability directed by the Terrier NTU system. Instead...we sunk them.

Anyway...yeah, we can do this pretty easy. It suggests to be a pretty good model!

[Haijun watcher]

FREMM in USN service?

Defense News

As the service looks to fill capabilities gaps, the US Navy eyes foreign designs
By: David B. Larter ? 7 hours ago

WASHINGTON ? As the U.S. Navy looks to fill capability gaps in its small surface combatants, the service is taking a hard look at international weapons and systems.

Two major programs ? the small surface combatant and the over-the-horizon missile for surface ships ? are seeing competition from international companies. As the Navy looks to replace its Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates with a new guided-missile frigate under the FFG(X) program, several international designs have drawn attention inside the Navy.

The Italian FREMM, built by shipbuilder Fincantieri, is a serious contender for the Navy�s FFG(X), analysts and insiders say, and Kongsberg�s Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate ? a Norwegian design ? could also be drawing some attention. The Navy�s deadline for responses to its request for information released in July was Aug. 24, but details have not yet been released on who is in the game for the new ship class.

(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

An enlarged Freedom class LCS-like vessel:

Navy Recognition

DSEI 2017: Lockheed Martin Unveils LCS 125M Concept Design for US Navy FFG(X)



At DSEI 2017, the international defense trade show currently held in London, UK, Lockheed Martin unveiled the new LCS 125 meters. A company representative explained that this "concept" is representative of Lockheed Martin's answer to the U.S. Navy FFG(X) requirement.

(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

Defense News

BAE joins race for new US frigate with its Type 26 vessel
By: David B. Larter ? 2 days ago

LONDON ? BAE Systems is officially gunning for the U.S. Navy�s new frigate program with its new Type 26 frigate now in production in the U.K.

Company officials confirmed Thursday it had responded to the U.S. Navy�s request for information and were in talks with unspecified companies in the states about how it would build the ship for the FFG(X) program, according to a BAE official who spoke on background to discuss early developments.

�In terms of the technical requirements, its a good fit. ... We responded to the RFI and we�re confident its a pretty good fit,� the official said.

(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

They could be excellent segways into the FF/FFG version of the Berthoff-class National Security Cutter. The Berthoffs can already accommodate 16 Mk41 VLS tubes. I wonder if that could be expanded without much trouble.

Speaking of the FFG version of the Bertholf/Legend class National Security Cutter used by the US Coast Guard, here's a picture of the navalized version, courtesy of Huntington Ingalls:



Breaking Defense

Frigate RFP Pioneers New Shipbuilding Approach
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on November 03, 2017 at 12:30 PM

CRYSTAL CITY: When the Navy publishes its Request For Proposals to design a new frigate, probably today, there should be no surprises for industry. That�s by, well, design. In stark contrast to the predecessor program, the Littoral Combat Ship, where the Navy changed key specs midway through construction at great expense, the frigate is a test case for a new approach to building ships that seeks to squeeze out uncertainty early.

To borrow buzzwords from the admirals at this week�s Naval Submarine League conference, the new approach combines �set-based design� with �industry-informed requirements.� In layman�s terms, that means explore a wide range of options at the start, talk to industry early and often, then lock down requirements and move fast to get ships in the water.

(...SNIPPED)

[navydavesof]

Interesting for sure! I question the idea to eliminate the SPQ-9B. That radar is a must no matter what. The arrangement of the Harpoons is really weird. They should be firing across the deck and not into it. The exhaust needs to blast over the edge instead of into the hull.

The SeaRAM also needs 2 Millennium Guns slaved to it, one port and one starboard. That would provide a CIWS to range of SeaRAM and then into the 35mm guns of the MGs.

I also wonder if the 16 VLS cannot be turned into 32. I figure it can!

[InchHigh]

Can someone please explain the fascination with the 57mm gun system? Makes absolutely no sense to me at all from either the tactical or logistical standpoints.

[carr]

..

[SumGui]

Bath will put forward a version of the Navantia F100 or F110 design:

http://www.pressherald.com/2017/11/15/b ... -u-s-navy/

HMAS Hobart the most recent development of the F100 (one hopes the cost overruns are a lesson...)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart-class_destroyer

Or the pending new F110 design, which seems to basically have an F100 series hull
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F110_class_frigate

[carr]

..