US Combat Ship Decision Coming in 'Very Near Future'

[Sparkplug]

CBO Says Navy Underestimated Cost of First Frigate by 40 Percent

https://news.usni.org/2020/10/14/cbo-says-navy-underestimated-cost-of-first-frigate-by-40-percent

[Sparkplug]

CBO Report on Cost of the Navy's FFG(X) Program

https://news.usni.org/2020/10/14/cbo-report-on-cost-of-the-navys-ffgx-program

Congressional Budget Office rapport:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7231174/The-Cost-of-the-Navy-s-New-Frigate-Oct-13-2020.pdf

[Harald]

SECNAV Braithwaite Names First FFG(X) USS Constellation (Bij USS Constellation denk ik meteen aan CV-64)

https://news.usni.org/2020/10/07/secnav-braithwaite-names-first-ffgx-uss-constellation

Idd ik ook. De Connie het vliegdekschip heeft in zijn historie veel actie gezien, vooral Vietnam en later in de Golf. 

[Sparkplug]

SECNAV Braithwaite Names First FFG(X) USS Constellation (Bij USS Constellation denk ik meteen aan CV-64)

https://news.usni.org/2020/10/07/secnav-braithwaite-names-first-ffgx-uss-constellation

[Sparkplug]

Navy Receives No Protests Over FFG(X) Frigate Award to Fincantieri; Detail Design Process Begins

https://news.usni.org/2020/06/03/navy-receives-no-protests-over-ffgx-frigate-award-to-fincantieri-detail-design-process-begins

[Harald]

US Navy's FFG(X): small(-ish) combatant, big future?

How will the FFG(X) fit into the US Navy's future fleet plans? The new-generation frigate could be key to hopes of maintaining a credible forward presence, but questions remain over whether the US Navy has found the right balance in terms of cost and capability

On 30 April, it was announced that the team led by Fincantieri and Marinette Marine had won the contract to design and build the United States Navy's new-generation frigate, currently dubbed FFG(X), which could be a pivotal programme for the US fleet. But questions remain over whether the navy has got the balance right in terms of the capability and cost of the FFG(X), and how the vessel will fit into its future fleet plans.

The winning team, which proposed a modification of the Italian variant of the Franco-Italian multi-mission frigate, or FREMM, beat a final line-up that included Austal USA, General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works and Huntington Ingalls. At 7,400 tonnes full-load displacement, the winning design is several hundred tonnes heavier and about seven metres longer than the standard Italian FREMM, to comply with the US Navy's requirements for survivability and growth potential. In US Navy terms, the FFG(X) is a small surface combatant, but the design will result in one of the world's largest modern frigates. Indeed, under current IISS classifications it would be listed as a destroyer.

Beyond the Littoral Combat Ship

The FFG(X) was designed to succeed the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), which had been cut back to 35 ships from a planned 52 because of criticism over its lack of survivability and firepower, as the navy shifted focus to great-power competition. The basic specification of the FFG(X) shows how far the navy has moved on from the 3,000- to 3,500-tonne LCS. The FFG(X) is closer to the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

The FFG(X) will be fitted with the Aegis Baseline 10 combat system, the new Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar, 32 Mk 41 vertical-launch missile cells plus at least eight and potentially 16 over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles, and a hangar for a helicopter and uninhabited air system. With  anti-submarine warfare (ASW) a growing priority, the ship's ASW capability will include the fitting of a variable-depth sonar. In some ways, it would seem to resemble a 'mini Arleigh Burke'. It will not have the same weapon capacity, but it will have much of the capability and should be cheaper to buy and run, with fewer crew and a more efficient power plant.

Partly for these reasons, and with suggestions that the navy may be looking to shift its future fleet's centre of gravity from larger surface combatants to smaller ones, it is possible that it may want more than the 20 FFG(X)s currently planned. As this debate plays out, it is noteworthy that the award of the contract for the FFG(X) was accelerated by several months. Conversely, planning for a new class of large surface combatants to begin to replace the navy's ageing cruisers and current destroyers – previously a priority – has been slowed down.

The contract for the FFG(X), valued at US$5.6 billion, is for up to ten ships rather than 20. They will be built at the Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin. There is speculation that the navy may eventually seek to award a further contract or contracts to at least one other yard, to accelerate production and perhaps ultimately to build a larger number of ships. The plan is for the first ship to be handed over to the navy in 2026 – a challenging deadline.

A fleet in the balance

However, notwithstanding this contract award, the US Navy's overall fleet plans have seemed rather uncertain, with the expected publication of a new integrated force-structure assessment and a long-term shipbuilding plan repeatedly delayed by months as the navy leadership grapples with the ambition to build up the fleet against a backdrop of constrained budgets. There have been reports of differences between the navy and the rest of the Pentagon, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

So, just how this programme will fit into the future fleet remains unclear, not least with the advent of uninhabited surface vessels. What will the balance and trade-offs be between new frigates and these emerging capabilities? Equally, parts of the US Congress are likely to be wary of any increase in the number of new frigates if it is at the expense of larger combatants such as cruisers and destroyers. The estimated cost of the first FFG(X) is US$1.3bn, with the average cost of subsequent ships falling to about $800 million. That is expected to be broadly half the price of the latest Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, but it is still an expensive platform, and a key to success will be keeping to the cost estimates.

Some question whether it will have the capacity for high-intensity conflict as part of a task force, which neither the LCS nor the previous generation of frigates were required to do. However, a feature of the design is said to be its ability to integrate new capabilities if required.

After the disappointments of the LCS programme, much is riding on the FFG(X). For many, it is a good design choice with considerable potential. It could be key to the fulfilment of the US Navy's aspirations to build up its fleet numbers and to maintain a credible forward presence. Many other major navies are also wrestling with how to balance costs and capabilities in the 'workhorses' of their fleets as the challenges in the maritime domain evolve rapidly. For these reasons, the US Navy's allies and partners, as well as potential opponents, will be watching closely to see how the programme unfolds.

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/05/us-navy-new-generation-frigate

[Harald]

Build a fleet, not a constituency

The U.S. Navy's long-awaited award of a contract to design and build a new class of frigates has brought with it calls to dramatically expand the planned class of 20 ships to a fleet of 70 or more hulls. Like recent congressional efforts to build more of today's amphibious ships or destroyers, these recommendations risk putting the Navy on an unsustainable path and could fail to influence Chinese or Russian adversaries the U.S. fleet is intended to help deter.

The Navy clearly needs guided-missile frigates. By bringing comparable capability with less capacity, frigates will provide a less expensive alternative to Arleigh Burke destroyers that are the mainstay of today's U.S. surface fleet. Freed of the requirement to conduct almost every surface combatant operation, destroyers would have more time to catch up on maintenance and training or be available to conduct missions demanding their greater missile capacity like Tomahawk missile strikes or ballistic missile defense.

However, the frigate's size — less than a destroyer, more than a littoral combat ship or corvette — also limits its ability to support U.S. Navy wartime operations. Frigates like the Franco-Italian FREMM can conduct the full range of European navy operations such as local air defense, maritime security and anti-submarine warfare, or ASW.

But the American FREMM variant will not have enough missile capacity for large or sustained attacks like those conducted by the U.S. Navy during the last several years in the Middle East, or like those that would be likely in a conflict with China. And although they could defend a nearby ship from air attack, the planned U.S. frigates could not carry enough longer-range surface-to-air interceptors to protect U.S. carrier and amphibious groups, or bases and population centers ashore.

.../...

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/11/build-a-fleet-not-a-constituency/

[Harald]

Navy's Big Frigate Risks an Oversized $1.4 Billion Cost Per Ship    ( ...  ... waauuuw .. )

The [US] Navy truncated orders for its ill-fated Littoral Combat Ship because the small vessels were vulnerable to attack and too lightly armed. Now, a new report suggests that the frigate intended to replace it may cost 56% more than projected partly because it's bigger.

The service projects that 18 of 20 new frigates will cost an average of $940 million each in inflation-adjusted dollars. The first two are estimated at about $1 billion each because of one-time costs.

But the Congressional Research Service alerted lawmakers this week to "a potential issue" worth reviewing: the accuracy of Navy cost estimates considering that "ships of the same general type and complexity that are built under similar production conditions" tend to have similar -- and substantially higher -- costs per ton of displacement.

CRS raised a warning because at 7,400 tons, the frigate to be built in Wisconsin by a unit of Italy's Fincantieri SpA is about three-fourths the size of an Arleigh Burke destroyer and carries many of the same weapons systems. The latest of the destroyers are estimated to cost $1.9 billion apiece.

That could put the cost for most of the frigates at as much as $1.47 billion each, "an increase of about 56%," based on comparing their tonnage to the destroyers', the research service said.

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/211114/us-navy%E2%80%99s-ffg%28x%29-frigate-risks-%241.4-bn-cost-per-ship%3A-crs.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-07/navy-s-big-frigate-risks-an-oversized-1-4-billion-cost-per-ship

[Sparkplug]

Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Frigate FFG(X) Program

https://news.usni.org/2020/05/05/report-to-congress-on-u-s-navy-frigate-ffgx-program-8

Rapport update 04-05-2020

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6882265/Navy-Frigate-FFG-X-Program-Background-and-Issues.pdf

[StrataNL]

Dus CODLAG is de beste.

Tja... en dan kies je dus voor een mindere optie.
Een bewuste keuze dus...

Wat zijn de redenen ?
- Kosten GT aanschaf
- verbruik
- ruimte
- ?

De eerste twee, gasturbines zijn vrij compact voor het vermogen wat ze leveren.
HEM's en/of batterijen nemen ook ruimte+gewicht in beslag.

[Harald]

Zie:  https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/index.php?topic=28227.msg416902#msg416902   (Opvolging LC Fregatten pagina 9, Antwoorden #115 en #116)

Dus CODLAG is de beste.

Dat is het hele punt, ze willen van gasturbines af.

Tja... en dan kies je dus voor een mindere optie.
Een bewuste keuze dus...

Wat zijn de redenen ?
- Kosten GT aanschaf
- verbruik
- ruimte
- ?

[StrataNL]

Misschien net als de MEKO A-200 een grote gasturbine direct gekoppeld aan een waterjet als men per se een flinke sprint wil trekken, en de rest diesel-electrisch?

Dat is het hele punt, ze willen van gasturbines af.

[Atlan]

Acceleratie is één, een hoge snelheid gedurende een langere periode vol kunnen houden is twee.

De jacht op OZB(ten) vereist (ook) uithoudingsvermogen.

Ik kan mij onderzeebootbestrijdingsoefeningen herinneren die de gehele nacht duurden, waarbij de gehele periode op 2 hoofdvaar gasturbines werd gevaren zodat het schip flexibel was in  haar vaar profiel.

Dat we dan de volgende dag dan weer een RAS moesten uitvoeren is een ander verhaal.

Misschien net als de MEKO A-200 een grote gasturbine direct gekoppeld aan een waterjet als men per se een flinke sprint wil trekken, en de rest diesel-electrisch?

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Diesel-elektrisch is juist veel sneller qua acceleratie dan puur diesels of GT's. Stond in Marineblad laatst ook een goed stukje over, ging specifiek over de vMFF

Voor de vMFF staat trouwens een min. vaart van 28kn dus als ze dat met diesel-elektrisch kunnen halen dan lijkt me dat ook prima

Acceleratie is één, een hoge snelheid gedurende een langere periode vol kunnen houden is twee.

De jacht op OZB(ten) vereist (ook) uithoudingsvermogen.

Ik kan mij onderzeebootbestrijdingsoefeningen herinneren die de gehele nacht duurden, waarbij de gehele periode op 2 hoofdvaar gasturbines werd gevaren zodat het schip flexibel was in  haar vaar profiel.

Dat we dan de volgende dag dan weer een RAS moesten uitvoeren is een ander verhaal.

[Poleme]

Idd. Diesel aggregaten

Hoe verhoud zich de verschillende manieren van aandrijving met elkaar ?  Enig idee?

Zie:  https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/index.php?topic=28227.msg416902#msg416902   (Opvolging LC Fregatten pagina 9, Antwoorden #115 en #116)