Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Navy FFG(X) RFI released

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by thebard View Post
    Something tells me this won't be happening.

    https://news.usni.org/2018/05/30/fin...ore#more-33972

    ...but that espresso machine....
    The FREMMs are awesome ships, I just wonder if they are too much ship for the role they are being asked to fill.

    European nations tend to build large frigates that rival full blooded destroyers in capabilities and firepower, if not magazine depth.

    I think the USN would benefit from sacrificing some capability for more hulls when it comes to frigates however. The USN doesn't need frigates that can act like destroyers in a pinch; they already have a ton of actual destroyers that can handle those problems as soon as they are freed up from filling in as overly capable frigates.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
      The FREMMs are awesome ships, I just wonder if they are too much ship for the role they are being asked to fill.
      Eh, Fincantieri could have pitched PPA instead, their OPV line. They're optionally less armed, have less electronics*, are more modular... oh, and they're bigger than FREMMs.

      * actually i think they might be using some parts there that will be taken off of FREMMs as part of their first MLU.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by kato View Post
        oh, and they're bigger than FREMMs.
        Watch the USN buy 20 more Burke hulls, throw a 76mm gun on top and call them Frigates... or better yet, they sure love the San Antonio hulls!

        Click image for larger version

Name:	Blog-pic.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	66.6 KB
ID:	1476599

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
          Watch the USN buy 20 more Burke hulls, throw a 76mm gun on top and call them Frigates...
          The Japanese Coast Guard Shikishima class is literally the size of a Burke... and that turret forward is a twin 35mm cued to her air defense radar.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by kato View Post
            The Japanese Coast Guard Shikishima class is literally the size of a Burke... and that turret forward is a twin 35mm cued to her air defense radar.

            A range of 20,000 nmi... Holy Smokes! That's a ton of fuel!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
              A range of 20,000 nmi... Holy Smokes! That's a ton of fuel!
              I guess they want to be able to stay out a long time without the need for refueling. It would, at least partially, explain the size of the hull.

              Comment


              • #67
                Nah, the original purpose was to escort nuclear waste transports to apparently Sellafield and other refurbishment facilities in Europe and possibly the Eastern US - and fuel rods the other way around. Without those transports and the escorts going to any ports inbetween to avoid... problems. That's what the range envelope was intended for.

                They're now being used somewhat similarly to what Absalon and F125 classes in Europe are used for in maneuvers, i.e. as command ships for naval taskforces composed of small patrol units. The Japanese do such maneuvers e.g. with Indonesia and iirc the Philippines.

                China recently one-upped them with a pair of 12,000-ton 540-ft coast guard cutters.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Speaking of the F125, what the hell were they designed for?

                  It looks like a destroyer with a big gun on a 7000+ ton hull but it has no VLS or torpedos? Deploying 4 RHIBs out of funny looking side doors is kind of cool I guess but it's in a weird spot where it seems like massive overkill for hunting pirates compared to corvettes or cutters, yet larger but a lot less capable than an F124 in a standup fight.

                  The descriptions I've seen say it's supposed to be on long duration but low intensity deployments, but in that case why not go for something like USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3) to serve as a mobile base for helos and small boats? It's a lot more capable in that role and a lot cheaper to boot.

                  And why is it so dang heavy despite the light armament? If anything I would think a bunch of open space to house and deploy RHIBs would decrease the ship's density.
                  Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 01 Jun 18,, 20:39.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    There's a whole thread for that question, ya know.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                      The main gun on the LCS....the 57mm. Do I not know enough about this weapon or does it appear the LCS is woefully under gunned? I figured it would need to be at least the OTO Melara 76 mm to be worthwhile.

                      Am I missing something?
                      220 rounds a minute? Great for shredding boat swarms, big ass CIWS, and since no warships are armored any more, 220 rounds a minute can do some serious damage to everything above the waterline.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        In comparison to the 76mm Mk75:
                        - same turret weight.
                        - virtually ballistically matched to 76mm (range envelope).
                        - slightly more than one-third the shell size for slightly less than three times the rate of fire resulting in same throw weight.

                        It's therefore mostly a philosophical question on e.g. whether you intend to also include NGFS roles or whether e.g. your priority is in swarm defense. There are minor differences in range and payload envelopes, e.g. 57mm supposedly has a better AA ceiling versus 76mm SAPOMER having a slightly longer surface-to-surface range (and better effect profile against larger targets).

                        Note that this is in comparison to 76mm Mk75 as used by the USN, not 76mm SR or in particular more modern 76mm DAVIDE or 76mm VULCANO. That's a whole different game.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by kato View Post
                          In comparison to the 76mm Mk75:
                          - same turret weight.
                          - virtually ballistically matched to 76mm (range envelope).
                          - slightly more than one-third the shell size for slightly less than three times the rate of fire resulting in same throw weight.

                          It's therefore mostly a philosophical question on e.g. whether you intend to also include NGFS roles or whether e.g. your priority is in swarm defense. There are minor differences in range and payload envelopes, e.g. 57mm supposedly has a better AA ceiling versus 76mm SAPOMER having a slightly longer surface-to-surface range (and better effect profile against larger targets).

                          Note that this is in comparison to 76mm Mk75 as used by the USN, not 76mm SR or in particular more modern 76mm DAVIDE or 76mm VULCANO. That's a whole different game.
                          And then there is this...

                          Originally posted by Sam_Lagrone_for_USNI

                          https://news.usni.org/2014/08/05/nav...guns-ddg-1000s

                          The Navy has replaced two 57mm guns planned on the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer designed to fight off swarm boat attacks with a smaller pair of 30mm guns, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) told USNI News...

                          ...Zumwalt-class ships were originally designed to field the BAE Systems MK 110 close-in gun system (CIGS) — a gun used on both classes of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) — to provide the ship’s company options to fight off so-called swarm boat attacks of the ship as part of a 2005 critical design review...

                          But in order to save weight and costs, NAVSEA elected to install twin General Dynamics 30 mm Mk 46 Gun System instead.
                          Recall that AGS is currently useless since they cancelled the ammo. So, the largest functioning guns on DDG-1000 are 30mm chain guns. And until that is rectified, LCS (and perhaps follow-on FF/FFG) have larger functional guns than DDG-1000.
                          .
                          .
                          .

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by JRT View Post
                            Recall that AGS is currently useless since they cancelled the ammo. So, the largest functioning guns on DDG-1000 are 30mm chain guns. And until that is rectified, LCS (and perhaps follow-on FF/FFG) have larger functional guns than DDG-1000.
                            Which makes that program even more something out of the twilight zone...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by JRT View Post
                              Recall that AGS is currently useless since they cancelled the ammo. So, the largest functioning guns on DDG-1000 are 30mm chain guns. And until that is rectified, LCS (and perhaps follow-on FF/FFG) have larger functional guns than DDG-1000.
                              Well, they needed SOME kind of gun on there. It is a destroyer, after all.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                July 2018 Congressional Report on FFG(X)

                                USNI has published a Congressional Report on the FFG(X) competition. It has a good recap of the competition to date, but you can see politics starting to creep into the competition:

                                Navy’s Plan for Shifting Procurement from LCS to FFG(X)

                                Another potential oversight issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the
                                Navy’s plan to procure a final LCS in FY2019 and shift to procurement of FFG(X)s starting in
                                FY2020. As noted earlier, the Navy’s plan to end LCS procurement in FY2019 and shift to
                                FFG(X) procurement starting in FY2020 would achieve the Navy’s 52-ship SSC force-level goal
                                by about 2035. The Navy’s plan would also have implications for workloads and employment
                                levels at the two LCS shipyards and their supplier firms
                                -If a modified LCS is chosen as the winner of the FFG(X) competition, then other
                                things held equal (e.g., without the addition of new work other than building
                                LCSs), workloads and employment levels at the other LCS shipyard (the one
                                whose modified LCS design is not chosen for the FFG(X) program), as well as
                                supplier firms associated with that other LCS shipyard, would decline over time
                                as the other LCS shipyard’s backlog of prior-year-funded LCSs is completed and
                                not replaced with new FFG(X) work.

                                -If a modified LCS is not chosen as the FFG(X)—that is, if the winner of the
                                FFG(X) competition is a proposal based on a hull design other than the two
                                existing LCS designs—then other things held equal, employment levels at both
                                LCS shipyards and their supplier firms would decline over time as their backlogs
                                of prior-year-funded LCSs are completed and not replaced with FFG(X) work.
                                The Navy needs to not do this split procurement crap with two different designs. Short term political gain for long term logistics and compatibility nightmare. Hopefully they've learned their lesson.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X