Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Navy FFG(X) RFI released

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by JCT View Post
    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:



    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.
    Not likely that they have learned anything, or at least that they will do anything differently. Those decisions don't really belong to the Navy per se, not to say that they are entirely left out, but that whole concept goes back to the days of the F-111 and before, where congress (and maybe the Joint Chiefs) makes the real decisions about what gets bought and not.
    Last edited by thebard; 27 Sep 18,, 17:12.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by JCT View Post
      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:



      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.
      The conclusion of the report seems flawed. If the USN chooses the Fincantieri design, the ship will be built at the same yard as the Freedom-class LCS.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by jrb1537 View Post
        The conclusion of the report seems flawed. If the USN chooses the Fincantieri design, the ship will be built at the same yard as the Freedom-class LCS.
        For some reason, my PC won't read the report. Can you say what that conclusion is?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
          For some reason, my PC won't read the report. Can you say what that conclusion is?
          The report is rather weird and doesn't have a true conclusion, just a series of concerns that it suggest Congress should monitor (for budgetary line items, perks, potential cash cows, etc.) Here's the list from the summary section:
          The FFG(X) program presents several potential oversight issues for Congress, including the following:
          • whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s FY2019 funding request for the program;
          • whether the Navy has accurately identified the capability gaps and mission needs to be addressed by the program;
          • whether procuring a new class of FFGs is the best or most promising general approach for addressing the identified capability gaps and mission needs;
          • whether the Navy has chosen the appropriate amount of growth margin to incorporate into the FFG(X) design;
          • the Navy’s intent to use a parent-design approach for the program rather than develop an entirely new (i.e., clean-sheet) design for the ship;
          • the Navy’s plan to end procurement of LCSs in FY2019 and shift to procurement of FFG(X)s starting in FY2020;
          • whether the initiation of the FFG(X) program has any implications for required numbers or capabilities of U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers.
          As thebard mentioned, Congress will have a big say in how this large ACAT I procurement will be handled and awarded.

          Reading a little further, it's interesting that the Navy is planning on using the LCS Blue/Gold crewing concept (derived from the silent service, etc.)

          Comment


          • #80
            The Feb 04, 2019 revision of the CRS R44972 has been released, Congessional Research Service report:

            "Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program:
            Background and Issues for Congress"

            https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44972
            .
            .
            .

            Comment


            • #81
              Quoted snippet below was excerpted from the full article at the following link.
              https://news.usni.org/2019/05/28/loc...r-ffgx-contest

              Lockheed Martin won’t submit a bid to compete in the design of the Navy’s next-generation guided-missile FFG(X) frigate competition, company officials told USNI News on Tuesday. The company elected to focus on its involvement developing the frigate combat system and other systems rather than forward its Freedom-class LCS design for the detailed design and construction contract Naval Sea Systems Command plans to issue this summer, Joe DePietro, Lockheed Martin vice president of small combatants and ship systems, told USNI News...
              .
              .
              .

              Comment


              • #82
                Guess Lockheed only likes to build large, over priced ships...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                  Guess Lockheed only likes to build large, over priced ships...
                  Instead of small over priced ships with inadequate C2 & combat systems?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by JCT View Post
                    Instead of small over priced ships with inadequate C2 & combat systems?
                    Actually I was thinking of the LCS. For something that's supposed to be for "litoral" combat, it's far too big...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I love the looks of the Bath Iron Works/Navantia FFG(X) design...

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	JO2PJR4UUNGYVETJQJ3PARPUUA.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	104.9 KB
ID:	1478160

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                        I love the looks of the Bath Iron Works/Navantia FFG(X) design...
                        That's my favored choice for the program. Of course, nobody's asked me for my opinion :-D
                        “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                        ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          It would look a bit better with a 5” up front.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                            It would look a bit better with a 5” up front.
                            Agreed! The parent design as the tried-and-true Mark 45...so why doesn't the BIW derivative have it?

                            They're still thinking that that 57mm pop gun is useful? It's a fine piece for corvettes and cutters etc, but a frigate should be packing nothing less than a 76mm IMHO
                            “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                            ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Hopefully, the 57mm requirement was to get the LCS derivatives into the competition. A requirement that one can hope will go by the wayside and be replaced by a 5”!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Looks like a proper frigate, tbh. But the 57mm does look small... would have thought a 76mm would be much better, preferably the Super Rapido version.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X