The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:08 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: FFG(X)
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
The RFI is out, time to start whiffing....

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us- ... ombat-ship

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/navy-r ... o-industry

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... ode=list&=

Needs include Self and convoy defense (AAW and ASW), integration with the task force.

28+ knts
3500nm range
200 Crew or less (all inclusive)

COMBATSS-21
EASR v2 http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/easr/
SQQ-89F
Nulka
SLQ-32(V)6 and capability for follow-on


1x MH-60R and 1x UAV (MQ-8C)
2x 7m RHIB

"Self Defense Launcher Capability" - (sounds like Mk41 VLS for ESSM to me...)
Mk 110 57mm gun (I'd look for Mk 45 here for versatility, but Mk 110 may be a focus for performance against small boats)
SeaRAM Mk15 Mod 31
2x4 "OTH Canister Weapon" (Harpoon/NSM/LRASM)
Surface to Surface Missile Module (SSMM Longbow Hellfire)



And more...

My first thought matches one from before - a stretched Betholf with a second Gas Turbine.

But I am still a fan of the Murasame/Takanami/Akizuki class hull.


viewtopic.php?f=67&t=50783&start=440


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FFG(X)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
I think I'd like to see a longer range than 3500 miles would be my only major gripe. The pacific is just going to call for more range for self deployment if nothing else.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FFG(X)
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 pm
Posts: 392
this is a design that is overdue. With the increase need to have a presences in the PAC area. The navy needs a FF. The Coast Guard ship would be the logical point to start with since the U.S. has the rights to that design. She would need to be stretched to at least a Spruance size platform to handle all the missions they want it too. I know the JSMDF DD103 and DD 116 class are great platforms and have the great potential for a what-if model. However my thoughts are see if they could play with the Spruance design to have the 110 mm aft and 5 inch forward. VLS should be ESSM, ASROC only, harpoons and for electronics I think the NTDS Suite would be the best. Omit the MK-29 launcher and go with either the sea ram and have the CIWS instead of millennium gun..


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FFG(X)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
https://news.usni.org/2017/07/27/navy-h ... quirements


"you need something in the 70 to 75 range on small surface combatants to be able to fill out the requirements from the combatant commanders around the world. And I would like to see this to be a robust ASW, anti-surface design with a 6,000-mile range. I think that that’s a good starting point.”

On the 6,000-mile range issue, the RFI notes the “minimum distance the ship can sail without replenishment when using all of its burnable fuel” is 3,000 nautical miles while sailing at 16 knots. Hendrix told the SASC subcommittee that “given the reserve fuel requirements, because we’ve never run the ships all the way down to zero, we always want to keep fuel for ballast and emergencies, that would actually limit that ship to have to at least take one refueling for even a transatlantic convoy escort. It would seem to me that any type of ship that’s built, and it’s written into the document, needs to be able to do [anti-surface warfare], anti-submarine warfare and convoy escort, that it ought to be able to do convoy escort without having to peel off and hit the tanker on the way over"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FFG(X)
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Some Type 26 data for comparison/consideration:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-vid ... abilities/


"The Type 26 will undoubtedly be the most capable ASW afloat, arriving early next decade. But it’s so much more than an ASW platform, with the ability to take Tomahawk strike missiles, a 5-inch gun and a considerable local area defence capability; and the mission bay, which can take a whole range of mission support packages."


https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-vid ... ign=social


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FFG(X)
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:26 pm 
It's frustrating they leave this open to modified LCS as the propulsion plant will be vastly inefficient compared to a plant and hull designed for the speed profile anticipated. The NSC frigate variants come close. My biggest concern is they are budgeting for a ship to cost over a billion each.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group