US Combat Ship Decision Coming in 'Very Near Future'

[Harald]

Ingalls Shipbuilding Sea Control Frigate   (gebaseerd op het U.S. Coast Guard National Security Cutter (NSC) ontwerp)

[Harald]

Details nieuwe Amerikaanse fregatten bekendgemaakt

Maandagavond heeft de Amerikaanse marine in een verzoek om informatie aan de Amerikaanse industrie meer details vrijgegeven over de toekomstige fregatten. Uit deze nieuwe informatie blijkt dat de nieuwe marineschepen flink zullen afwijken van de huidige, nieuwe, korvetten ofwel de LCS'en.

.../...

https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/details-nieuwe-Amerikaanse-fregatten-110717.html

[MasterChief1971]

Ala het ze net zo vergaat als de radarpickets in de Pacific (44-45) dan vind ik deze opzet bizar en crimineel.

Toegegeven: met ESSM 2 kunnen ze zichzelf aardig redden maar die sub(s) kunnen ze niet goed handelen.

Pennywise....

[Ronald Elzenga]

Navy Steers Well Away From An LCS Frigate

...

Interessante waarnemingen die denk ik ook nuttig zijn voor het vMFF project.

[Harald]

Navy Steers Well Away From An LCS Frigate

UPDATED w/ Cdr. Clark's analysis WASHINGTON: At 1:10 pm today, the Navy issued its official wishlist for its future frigate and set a 45-day deadline for shipbuilders to respond. As acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley had promised, today's Request For Information (RFI) opens the door wide to both US and foreign designs. It doesn't lock the Navy into buying an upgraded variant of the current Littoral Combat Ships, but it doesn't rule that out, either.

Overall, the performance requirements in the RFI suggest a very different vessel than the original LCS, one capable not only of auxiliary duties but of escorting aircraft carriers and supply convoys in conjunction with Aegis destroyers. A few parameters in particular stand out:

Reliability: The future frigate should be fully functional ("operational availability") at least 72 percent of the time. Both the single-hulled Freedom and trimaran Independence LCS have suffered embarrassing breakdowns, beyond the normal teething troubles of a new class.

◾Survivability: The frigate's propulsion, weapons, and other "critical systems" should be sufficiently well-protected ("shock hardening") for the ship to take a hit and keep fighting, at least with its defensive anti-aircraft systems. The original concept for LCS was to retreat for repairs once hit, so critical systems on LCS are not shock-hardened and were tested less rigorously than the Navy norm, according to the Pentagon's independent Director of Operational Test & Evaluation.

◾Crew Size: The frigate may have up to 200 crew. By contrast, reducing crew size — and therefore personnel costs — was a major driver of the original LCS design. The small crew raised concerns about having insufficient manpower for routine maintenance, let alone damage control in battle. Even after increasing the crew, LCS still deploys with about 70 sailors.

◾Speed: The frigate must reach and sustain speeds of at least 28 knots (32 mph) . That's fast enough to keep up with a carrier battle group, but it's slow compared to the LCS, which can sprint at over 40 knots. That top speed required enormous, expensive, and complex engines relative to the size of the ship, as well as exotically streamlined hulls, driving the whole design, but the Navy never found a solid tactical reason for going that fast.

In short, the Navy wants the frigate to do certain things better than the LCS — and the things the LCS does well, the Navy doesn't care much about.

Then there's the loaded question of weapons. The Navy had already committed to installing a long-range Over The Horizon (OTH) anti-ship missile on both the future frigates and, through retrofits, to the existing LCS. It had ruled out the major modifications to the ship required to install Vertical Launch Systems — essentially, missile silos built into the hull — although both LCS manufacturers said they could add VLS to their designs if asked. The new Request For Information asks for a minimum of eight OTH missiles, but then it raises an intriguing possibility of heavier armament that would require a VLS.

◾First, the RFI says "the Navy is particularly interested" in defensive weapons, specifically naming the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) and the SM-2 Standard Missile. While the ESSM can be launched from rails mounted on deck, the SM-2 is almost always fired from a Vertical Launch System. (The Navy briefly used rail launchers for SM-2s, but they were all retired in favor of VLS).

◾Then, the Navy indicates further interest in "strike length variants to maximize weapons flexibility" — i.e. launch systems capable of handling offensive weapons as well as defensive ones — "if able to be cost effectively integrated." While very cautious and cost-constrained, this language suggests a strong interest in the dual-purpose offensive/defensive Vertical Launch System.

Another intriguing detail is the instruction that all designs must reserve 26 tons of weight and 600 kilowatts of electrical power "for future Directed Energy and Active EA." EA means electronic attack, i.e. jamming enemy radios and radars, a vital military specialty in which the US has lost ground compared to Russia and China. "Directed energy" means high-powered microwaves and lasers. The Navy has been keenly interested in defensive lasers, putting one on the USS Ponce in the Persian Gulf to shoot down drones — but that's only a 30-kilowatt weapon: the future frigate could fire a far more powerful laser.

It's important to remember that the Navy is still exploring the art of the possible here, and is not yet building a ship. The Request For Information (RFI) is just that, asking companies to provide their existing ship designs, estimated costs to modify them to Navy requirements, and rough costs and schedules to build the first ship in 2020 and two more a year thereafter.

This is not the official beginning of a competition — that would be the Request For Proposals, RFP — nor a binding commitment on the Navy's part. But with those caveats, the Request For Information gives a fascinating window into what the Navy wants.

UPDATED Retired Navy Commander Bryan Clark, a former top aide to the Chief of Naval Operations, gave us his analysis of the requirements — putting particular emphasis on places where the Navy seems willing to accept less powerful, more affordable frigate:

"The RFI implies the Navy is still concerned about the cost of the new ship and perhaps wants to use the FFG(X) as something other than a traditional frigate," Clark wrote in an email. "This RFI incorporates several optional requirements that would reduce the FFG(X)'s capability and cost. For example:

"The FFG(X) is not required to do air defense for another ship. (It) would conduct ASW (anti-submarine warfare) and ASUW (anti-surface warfare) and have improved survivability against air threats. The RFI leaves open the degree to which the FFG(X) would be able to do air defense for another ship, asking respondents to propose how they would provide for air defense, and what launchers, such as VLS, they would use to host ESSM and SM-2 interceptors. ESSM would provide the bare minimum capability needed to defend another ship, but only in very constrained geometries where the FFG(X) is very close to the defended ship and between the defended ship and an incoming missile. In other situations, an SM-2 would probably be required."

The Navy is leaving its options open here, Clark said, because it's leery of installing heavy-duty air defense would increase cost and degrade performance, potentially to the point it knocks LCS-derived designs out of the running. "While Congress is pushing foreign designs such as the Fincantieri FREMM or Navantia F-105 (which already have VLS installed), the Navy likely wants variants of the current LCS to be able to compete for FFG(X)," he said. "To include VLS, the Freedom-class LCS would likely need a hull extension; the Austal LCS may be heavier with VLS and become slower and less efficient."

Similarly, Clark notes, the RFI only requires passive, defensive electronic warfare systems, not active jamming capability, and it puts anti-submarine warfare at a lower priority ("Tier 2") than either defensive systems or offensive anti-ship weapons. "While the RFI says the Navy wants a ship capable of doing (both) ASUW and ASW," he said, "this could result in an option for FFG(X) that is less expensive and focused on ASUW."

Overall, Clark said, these requirements suggest less a traditional frigate than a kind of picket ship, a spotter transmitting targeting data to more powerful vessels: "Instead of being a full-up multi-mission frigate, the RFI suggests the FFG(X)'s job is to support Distributed Maritime Operations and Distributed Lethality by hosting unmanned systems and acting as a remote active and passive sensor to support shooters over the horizon" — such as the more powerful Aegis destroyers.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/navy-steers-well-away-from-an-lcs-frigate/

[Harald]

Exclusive Interview: The Navy's surface warfare director talks frigate requirements

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/exclusive-interview-the-navys-surface-warfare-director-talks-frigate-requirements

[Harald]

Makkelijk gezegd, maar dat is dus juist waar alles wel op wijst.

Wat wel is dat veel instanties/mensen in de VS negatief zijn over de LCS ontwerpen en zijn/haar overlevingskansen.

Kijken naar wat Nederland bouwt is leuk, maar daar kun je ook wel vanuit gaan dat het niks gaat worden.

Natuurlijk is het "The GREAT" USA en het "Tiny" Netherlands, maar Damen ontwerpen zijn wel bekend in de VS.
En Damen bouwt modulair en als je kijkt naar de kosten bouwen we in NL niet duur. 

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

De kans dat het meer wordt dan een kop koffie is natuurlijk zeer klein. Er zijn al betaalbare schepen, die ook nog eens wél AEGIS hebben.

Mee eens.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

@parera. Je hebt waarschijnlijk meer gelezen dan ik, ik heb alleen het eerste artikel gelezen namelijk. 
Maar ... In de VS zijn ze niet geheel onbekend met de schepen en ontwerpen van Damen. Wat wel klopt is dat ze altijd gaan voor made in de USA al is het ontwerp "buitenlands".
Van het eigen LCS ontwerp weten ze zelf heel goed dat het niet voldoet in oorlogsomstandigheden. En zullen zeker niet kiezen voor een geupgrade bestaand LCS ontwerp.

Als het vMFF daadwerkelijk de capaciteiten krijgt die wij nu denken dat  deze krijgt tegen een prijs van ongeveer 500 mjn euro... dan zou het concept maar zo extra aandacht kunnen krijgen en zo gek is het dan niet dat een Amerikaanse delegatie een kop koffie gaat drinken bij DMO/Damen.

[Harald]

@parera. Je hebt waarschijnlijk meer gelezen dan ik, ik heb alleen het eerste artikel gelezen namelijk. 
Maar ... In de VS zijn ze niet geheel onbekend met de schepen en ontwerpen van Damen. Wat wel klopt is dat ze altijd gaan voor made in de USA al is het ontwerp "buitenlands".
Van het eigen LCS ontwerp weten ze zelf heel goed dat het niet voldoet in oorlogsomstandigheden. En zullen zeker niet kiezen voor een geupgrade bestaand LCS ontwerp.

[Parera]

Opvallende details van de FFG(X)

- Minimaal 3000 Zeemijl bereik op 16 knopen (Dit is in mijn ogen heel weinig voor een modern fregat ; Fridtjof Nansen 4500 zeemijl @ 16 knopen)
- Maximaal 28 knopen bij 80% MCR
- Bij de bouw/ontwerp moet er energie capaciteit gereserveerd zijn voor  Directed Energy (laser wapens)


Ook ligt voor een groot deel al vast welke systemen er op gaan komen qua sensoren en bewapening. Wat ik zo snel uit de RFI haal:
- 57 mm kanon
- Surface-to-Surface Missile Module (Hellfire raketten)
- 2x4 Over The Horizon Surface to Surface missiles (Harpoon of vervanger)
- SeaRAM Mk15 Mod 31
- 1x MH-60 Seahawk helikopter

Alles bij elkaar klinkt het in mijn ogen meer als een korvet dan een Fregat. De FFG(X) zal voor het grootste deel bescherming krijgen van de DDG's maar moet wel instaat zijn een AOR te escorteren en beveiligen in lage-middelhoge gewelds spectra.

Volgens mij hebben we dit in Nederland ook wel eens gehoord en daaruit zijn de Hollands ontstaan, ik vermoed dan ook niet dat het bij deze tender van de Amerikanen op een echt fregat gaat uitkomen maar een korvet.

Gezien de eisen en wensen, zouden de Dmo/KM bijna samen met de US Navy het fregatten ontwerp opzetten.

Alsjeblief niet! Laat die yanks lekker hun eigen zooi ontwerpen, dit idee van de Amerikanen is gedoemd om te mislukken. De huidige plannen gaan voor het grootste deel in de richting van een verbeterde LCS of zelfs naar wat we zouden classificeren als een korvet.

Een aangepast ontwerp van de Fridtjof Nansen zou in mijn ogen goed op zijn plaats zijn binnen de US Navy.

[Harald]

Gezien de eisen en wensen, zouden de Dmo/KM bijna samen met de US Navy het fregatten ontwerp opzetten.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Base Notice: RFI: FFG(X) - US Navy Guided Missile Frigate Replacement Program

http://snagfilms-a.akamaihd.net/d7/e7/9e3ec76d4f47a1643707633250ee/base-notice-rfi-ffg-x-us-navy-guided-missile-frigate-replacement-program-n0002418r2300.pdf

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

US Navy releases specs for proposed frigate, a break from LCS

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-navy-releases-specs-for-a-proposed-guided-missile-frigate-a-break-from-the-littoral-combat-ship?

[Harald]

USN expects first delivery of Future Frigate in 2024

Key Points
•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".

"We would expect industry to complete their detailed design. It'll take them a year, year and a half, to complete their detailed design while they order material, [and then] about a three-year build span," said Stackley on 15 June. "So we would expect the frigate to be in the water, ready for delivery in the 2024 time frame."

"We don't want to take on the risk that they took on in the LCS programme with this: [establishing] non-realistic schedules and a procedure when design was not mature," Stackley added.

Adm Richardson also stated that the previous Future Frigate acquisition strategy changed due to "more challenging" threats and the USN's desire for the frigate to be "relevant in a distributed maritime operational concept" as well as changes in the fiscal environment that have caused the USN to "re-address the requirements for the frigate".

http://www.janes.com/article/71815/usn-expects-first-delivery-of-future-frigate-in-2024