Author Topic: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now  (Read 6472 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« on: July 12, 2017, 06:57:14 »
The Navy has decided it needs real frigates like we used to have. LCS aint gonna cut it. The USN is specifying frigates that are currently operational with the following requirements.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cdf24447b8015337e910d330a87518c6&tab=core&_cview=0

There are some advocates that want to buy the best foreign frigate design,the ship has to be displacing water now,not in the future.Commit to a run of 10 or more ships that would give US domestic ship builders time to come up with a new frigate.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 07:03:39 by tomahawk6 »

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 134,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,163
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2017, 11:52:45 »
57mm gun only, surprised so small, would have expected 76mm to 5"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,702
  • Freespeecher
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2017, 12:15:06 »
From other articles, the primary focus of this design is supposed to be VLS missile cells, so the cannon only needs to be for close in work, not things like shore bombardment. Depending on things like the software and sensor suite, I suppose the frigate can be kitted out as an air defense platform or an anti ship platform simply by changing the load out of missiles in the launching cells.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2017, 12:23:10 »
57mm gun only, surprised so small, would have expected 76mm to 5"

From what I am reading the LCS crowd supports the 57mm gun and everyone else wants 76mm to 127mm. I would favor the 5in 54 it works against small vessels and shore bombardment. Lets see where the Navy types take this. Trump wants a 355 ship Navy yesterday so this vessel cant wait 10 years to join the fleet. Take an off the shelf design from Germany,Netherlands,Norway,Sweden or Canada. By then the US shipyards will have a design and can start building FFX.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 44,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,697
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2017, 12:28:52 »
From other articles, the primary focus of this design is supposed to be VLS missile cells, so the cannon only needs to be for close in work, not things like shore bombardment. Depending on things like the software and sensor suite, I suppose the frigate can be kitted out as an air defense platform or an anti ship platform simply by changing the load out of missiles in the launching cells.

What planners envision rarely becomes the reality. Why limit yourself to 57 mm when you have the room to fit the 5inch.

Also the 57 mm is the claw marks of the LCS supporters trying to salvage their pet.

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/07/11/ffgx-quo-vadis

 

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 134,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,163
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2017, 12:34:16 »

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 68,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,331
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2017, 12:55:38 »
Foreign designs OK:
Quote
Sen. McCain ‘Cautiously Optimistic’ About Navy’s New Frigate Plans, After Years of LCS Criticism

Outspoken Littoral Combat Ship and frigate critic Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said today he is “cautiously optimistic” after reading the Navy’s first official account of what the updated frigate requirements may look like, according to a statement from his office.

The Navy on Monday released a request for information to industry that included significant detail about the revised frigate, which has now been upgraded to a guided-missile frigate program and will included enhanced capabilities such as a more powerful radar and some type of missile launcher system, the details of which have yet to be determined.

The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman said in a statement that “I am cautiously optimistic regarding the request for information on a new Frigate program that the Navy released yesterday. This new Frigate must be more capable than the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, with minor modifications. For example, the new Frigate’s ability to perform local area air defense for convoys of ships would provide a necessary and clear capability improvement over the LCS program. I look forward to learning more about the new Frigate requirements and acquisition strategy, including how the Navy will deliver on time and on budget.”

McCain has long criticized the LCS program, both due to cost overruns and schedule delays and due to the basic role of the ship in the Navy fleet. Back in 2010 McCain said the LCS program “has a long, documented history of cost overruns and production slippages.”..

The Navy had previously decided to build a frigate that would take either the Lockheed Martin Freedom-variant design (LCS-1) or Austal USA Independence-variant design (LCS-2) and turn it from the LCS – with interchangeable mission packages for either mine countermeasures, surface warfare or anti-submarine warfare – into a multi-mission frigate that would have both surface and anti-submarine warfare weapons permanently on the ship, as well as additional self-protection and offensive fire power. McCain did not feel the frigate plans went far enough, particularly disagreeing with the decision to not incorporate vertically launched missiles that could aid the ship in conducting air defense. The Navy’s RFI in may ways does read like the previous frigate plans but does include requirements for a powerful radar and asks for industry input on how to best incorporate vertically launched missiles [emphasis added].

The two LCS builders, Austal USA and Lockheed Martin, released statements Monday following the Navy’s RFI. Both companies intend to compete for the frigate program, which has been opened up to allow other domestic and foreign ship designers to compete as well [emphasis added]...
https://news.usni.org/2017/07/11/sen-mccain-cautiously-optimistic-navys-new-frigate-plans

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2017, 12:55:51 »
Looks nice. They should make the USN an offer.Maybe lease purchase ?  :D

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2017, 13:14:34 »
Looks nice. They should make the USN an offer.Maybe lease purchase ?  :D

Or you could go for the Lcf: [;)  (De Zeven Provincien-class)



And as a second option the new vMFF(M-class replacement),artist impression.(primary task ASW,but also area defence,etc)



Many options. [:p


« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 15:43:26 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2017, 13:17:30 »
Some like the Italian FREMM design but the Danes have a solid frigate that is easily upgradable.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 68,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,331
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2017, 14:24:19 »
Maybe USN will buy what RCN gets for CSC so can maintain interoperabilitiy :rofl:.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 68,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,331
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2017, 13:24:38 »
More on Danish Iver Huitfeldt class for USN--note costs compared to RCN CSC (all three Euro designs apparently in running for CSC; further links at original):

Quote
Danes Tout $340M Stanflex Frigate For US Navy – But What’s Real Cost?

Denmark really wants you to know they have a solution for the US Navy’s frigate problem. Pentagon officials are on the record that they’ll consider foreign designs in their quest for a more powerful small warship than the $450–$550 million, 3,400-ton Littoral Combat Ship. The Danish answer: their $340 million, 6,600-ton Iver Huitfeldt “Stanflex” frigate.

That’s a lot of ship for the price. But a leading US expert, Bryan Clark, tells us that the Danes may be undercounting their costs by about $50 million, since some of the frigates’ weaponry was recycled from older ships going out of service — an economy made possible by the Danish navy’s Stanflex system of interchangeable equipment modules. That would put the frigate at under $400 million, which is still pretty good compared to LCS or international competitors. The thing is, Clark argued, the costs to the US would be much higher once the design was upgraded to US Navy standards, fitted with US weapons and electronics, and built in less efficient US yards.

With a new radar and other upgrades, “the ship would likely cost around $700-900 million, which would be similar to the (Franco-Italian) FREMM, an upgraded LCS, and the (Spanish) F-105 [emphasis added],” said Bryan Clark, a former top aide to the Chief of Naval Operations. “It would probably be a little higher than (an upgrade of the Coast Guard) National Security Cutter.”

The two US and two European designs Clark listed are the ones I wrote up in May as the four top contenders for the frigate contract. I barely mentioned the Iver Huitfeldt in that story because no one could name a US shipyard interested in working with the Danes on the design, while the FREMM and F-100/F-105 series had clear potential partners. After that story appeared, however, the Danish embassy reached out to me to argue they are very much in the running.

Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) owns the design, said Rear Adm. Niels Olsen, the Danish defense attache here, and “they have already been in contact with Ingalls and Bath” — the two US shipyards that build destroyers.

“And they have been in dialogue with Lockheed,” added Olsen’s assistant attache, Lt. Col. Per Lyse Rasmussen. Lockheed builds the Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship with Wisconsin shipyard Marinette Marine, which is owned by Italian defense firm Fincantieri — which incidentally builds one of competing frigates, the FREMM. Rasmussen said, “Lockheed Martin seems interested, Fincantieri maybe not so much.”..
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/danes-tout-340m-stanflex-frigate-for-us-navy-but-whats-real-cost/

And from 2015:

Quote
RCN’s Planned Canadian Surface Combatant: Maybe We Could Learn From Danes Too
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/mark-collins-rcns-planned-canadian-surface-combatant-maybe-we-could-learn-from-danes-too/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2017, 14:07:45 »
That was quick we only mentioned the Danish ship here yesterday. It has alot of attributes the USN would like including a robust air defense capability and the ability to fire Tomahawk among other weapons.Maybe the Danes read this site as well. ;D

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2017, 15:13:00 »
That was quick we only mentioned the Danish ship here yesterday. It has alot of attributes the USN would like including a robust air defense capability and the ability to fire Tomahawk among other weapons.Maybe the Danes read this site as well. ;D

So i'm i right in thinking The APAR and Smart-L will be switched out by an AEGIS(SPY)variant?If the Danish "Ivar" is choosen.(my personal believe is that this set-up(radars)is 1 of the best on the market now,but could be wrong(i'm not  >:D  )

If it must carry Spy/Aegis,then the US is better off with the Fridtjof Nansen-class,wich allready has that.(Norwegian frigates)
« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 05:02:23 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2017, 15:35:07 »
To keep the cost down go with a cheaper/smaller AN/SPY system. The Ivar cost $340m so tweak the design and you still come in at $400m a copy. Over that figure you might as well build scaled down Burke's.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/danes-tout-340m-stanflex-frigate-for-us-navy-but-whats-real-cost/

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 68,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,331
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2017, 16:02:01 »
FWIW, radical thought at Canadian Defence Review (via MILNEWS.ca Blog, scroll down https://milnewsca.wordpress.com/2017/07/14/news-140920edt-141320utc/ ):

Quote
...Canada could team up with a US shipbuilder for this competition.

PROPOSING HALIFAX CLASS FOR USN REQUIREMENT

The Halifax class frigate is a dated, but proven design that has served the Royal Canadian Navy for decades.   At 4,800 tons displacement, it is smaller than many European competitors and more likely to come within the US Navy budget of USD $700m-$1b per ship.   It is a rugged and reliable design that can be modernized, keeping the basic hull except for substituting newer materials like high strength steel that improves performance while reducing weight. 

Or, for the Canadian version, an ice strengthened hull could be built for the same weight.   Minor tweaks to the decades old hull could improve hydrodynamic performance and stealth.   Importantly, Grade A shock hardening for critical systems will not be a difficult hurdle for a freshened design.

The Halifax class machinery can potentially go different ways, either with a minor update of more powerful turbines and engines to meet the FFG(X) requirements, or alternatively, for a major refresh, it could be converted to an all-electric design that is optimized for exportable power with ample room for energy storage.    The superstructure can be updated to a lighter but stronger structure with newer materials with an eye to a cleaner, stealthier design and also increase available interior space. 

The hull can be modified to maximize the opportunity for rapid upgrades/replacement by using Danish style modular mission modules and versatile systems like the Mk-57 VLS system, and the electronic modular enclosures (EME) used in the Zumwalt Class Destroyers. A modernized Halifax Class Frigate along these lines would be difficult to justify for the Royal Canadian Navy on the basis of cost and risk given DND’s track record in managing major procurements.

But there is a way.

Suppose a Canadian shipyard partners with a major US shipbuilder that has the experience and expertise from the Zumwalt and late model Arleigh Burke Destroyers. Canada can contribute the intellectual property for the Halifax Class Frigate and then share the cost of entering the “New Halifax” in the US FFG(X) competition with a freshened design. 

If the design is chosen, Canada could negotiate a deal with the US to share development costs, and end up with a design that would be crafted to be compatible with US systems from the ground up, and yet, come with the ruggedness and reliability that Canadians have come to expect from the Halifax Class for decades. The Canadian shipyard partner would retain exclusive rights to the Canadian market and also have a share of the world market for FFG(X) derivatives. 

With the US Navy investing the bulk of the development cost for their fleet of 20 ships, the cost of this program per ship will likely be a fraction of the cost of the CSC...
http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/64

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 137,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,566
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2017, 19:05:30 »
An article worthy of the old CASR "modest proposals", and clear demonstration that the professor, notwithstanding his Civil and Environmental Engineering degree, hasn't a clue about ship design and architecture.

I don't know how many times we have to explain that in naval architecture, changing "a few minor things" is NOT like re-arranging the furniture in your house. Everything is connected to everything else and if you change one thing here, then you also have to change twenty five other things around, and sometimes even far away, which require changes to other things themselves. It's not the same ship anymore and it's not the same plans.

For instance: "tweak" the hydrodynamics of the hull !!! It's not the same hull any more and every single plan has to be re-drafted. And if you "tucked it in" at a specific point for better hydrodynamics, then you have to redesign where you are going to relocate the pipes, wiring or equipment that used to occupy that area on the inside, etc. etc.

Even what the US is asking for: a "proven design" then modified to use US sensors (radars and sonars and various ESM systems), US combat systems and US weapons system, means a major redesign of the ship's interior layout - at the very least. And so it would be a different ship anyway.

Not sure they will be saving much money.
 

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2017, 19:34:22 »
An article worthy of the old CASR "modest proposals", and clear demonstration that the professor, notwithstanding his Civil and Environmental Engineering degree, hasn't a clue about ship design and architecture.

I don't know how many times we have to explain that in naval architecture, changing "a few minor things" is NOT like re-arranging the furniture in your house. Everything is connected to everything else and if you change one thing here, then you also have to change twenty five other things around, and sometimes even far away, which require changes to other things themselves. It's not the same ship anymore and it's not the same plans.

For instance: "tweak" the hydrodynamics of the hull !!! It's not the same hull any more and every single plan has to be re-drafted. And if you "tucked it in" at a specific point for better hydrodynamics, then you have to redesign where you are going to relocate the pipes, wiring or equipment that used to occupy that area on the inside, etc. etc.

Even what the US is asking for: a "proven design" then modified to use US sensors (radars and sonars and various ESM systems), US combat systems and US weapons system, means a major redesign of the ship's interior layout - at the very least. And so it would be a different ship anyway.

Not sure they will be saving much money.

Indeed,you're right,they should "just" look at what they think they need an buy or built the closest thing that's around,don't change it,just take it as is.

And if there isn't a design what fits your "bill",design it yourself(altough it's hard to immagine there isn't 1,for a frigate i mean,be serious)

I mean over here(Europe,we've got everything,frigate designs,from M-class(or the replacements)to Fremms,etc,up and down the spectrum,why redesign "the wheel")
« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 19:41:52 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 134,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,163
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2017, 14:52:44 »
Because the wheel is connected to a trough full of money.  [:)

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 871
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2017, 17:59:51 »
Because the wheel is connected to a trough full of money that flows into the US military-industrial complex [:)

Fixed that for you...

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,111
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2017, 00:04:26 »
They must have a couple of hundred 'destroyers' or something similar in mothballs. Would it make sense to recommission and upgrade them?
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,215
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2017, 00:05:12 »
They must have a couple of hundred 'destroyers' or something similar in mothballs. Would it make sense to recommission and upgrade them?

I would imagine that in many cases, the upgrades would cost almost as much as a new ship.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 44,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,697
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2017, 06:58:46 »
They must have a couple of hundred 'destroyers' or something similar in mothballs. Would it make sense to recommission and upgrade them?

No they don't. They have maybe a dozen OHP's in long term storage. Don't know if its worth the cost.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,507
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2017, 08:12:58 »
The USN is bringing out of storage 7-8 OHP's.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,551
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2017, 11:08:20 »
WRT Irving, the Danes and RCN/USN connections.

Here is Irving's AOPS team.

Quote
Irving Shipbuilding's AOPS Tier 1 Suppliers

For significant programs, Irving Shipbuilding appoints Major Subcontractors to execute major work packages, typically including the design and supply of complex systems.

In the case of the Artic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS), five Major Subcontractors were selected with the exceptional capabilities and experience needed to provide large work packages sub-contracted by Irving Shipbuilding from the Definition Contract. This Contract was signed by Irving Shipbuilding with the Government of Canada in March 2013, and included in its scope the design, validation and integration of the AOPS and all of the complex equipment and systems on the vessel.

As Canada’s Prime Contractor for the AOPS project, Irving Shipbuilding selected a team of exceptional, experienced subcontractors to fulfill the mandate of the design phase.

In January 2015, the Government of Canada announced the award of the contract for the Production of the AOPS to Irving Shipbuilding following on from the Definition Contract. This award then triggered negotiations for the production of the AOPS with the Major Subcontractors and other potential suppliers.

Major Subcontractors Include:

Lockheed Martin Canada -- Command and Surveillance Systems Integrator
Responsible for the engineering, design, procurement, integration, test and delivery of command and surveillance systems that meet all applicable requirements

GE Canada -- Integrated Propulsion System Integrator
Responsible for the engineering, design, procurement, integration, test and delivery of propulsion systems that meet all applicable requirements

Lloyd’s Register Group -- Classification Society
Liaison with the Design Agent and the integrators to obtain class society approval for required design product

Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) -- Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture Provider
Responsible for the engineering, design and integration of all aspects of the AOPS with the exception of propulsion, and command and surveillance systems

Fleetway Inc. -- Integrated Logistics Support Provider
Responsible for development and integration of the Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) products that enables the support of AOPS during its lifecycle

OMT is the Danish team that delivered the Huifeldts and Absolons.

I wonder if Bath Iron Works could pick up some helpful hints from OMT.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 68,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,331
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2019, 14:10:01 »
Start of a major piece with lots of technical detail, graphics on plans for new USN frigates (only Fincantieri-based design also in for CSCs--and compare likely unit costs)--further links at original:

Quote
The Navy's Future Frigates Are Shaping Up To Be More Lethal And Capable, As Well As Cheaper
The requirements have expanded, but the service is pushing for commonality with existing systems to push the price point down.

The U.S. Navy expects to complete a design review of five proposed frigate designs by the end of this spring. This will help the service finalize its requirements and pave the way for a full, open competition to hire one company to build 20 frigates, each of which will cost more than $800 million. These ships will be a significant component of a growing surface warfare renaissance within the service.

Navy officials offered the latest details on the state of the program at the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) main annual conference on Jan. 15, 2019. The service first announced its was in the market to procure new guided missile frigates, presently referred to as FFG(X), in 2017. Subsequently, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Fincantieri Marine, Huntington Ingalls, Austal USA, and Lockheed Martin each received $15 million contracts in 2018 to craft proposed designs and to help the Navy figure out exactly what it wanted out of the ships.

Firmer requirements

“Our requirements are mature,” Dr. Regan Campbell, the FFG(X) program manager at Naval Sea Systems Command, said during remarks at the SNA conference on Jan. 17, 2019. “We’ve engaged with industry, gotten a lot of wonderful feedback and significant savings from that engagement. And we are on track to finish those conceptual design contracts, and through that process I think we are going to have a robust competition going into detailed design and construction.”

Campbell said that the Navy received more than 300 specific suggestions from the five contractors regarding the requirements for the frigates, as well as ways to save money. The service implemented around 200 of those pointers.

There were no details on exactly what these changes to the Navy’s requirements included, but the service is now increasingly confident that the average unit cost for the ships will be closer to $800 million each. The initial threshold unit price was $950 million apiece...


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26217/the-navys-future-frigates-are-shaping-up-to-be-more-lethal-and-capable-as-well-as-cheaper

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 137,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,566
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2019, 15:00:10 »
Knowing the Americans, I'd put down a fiver on the Huntington Ingalls Patrol frigate.

This said, I find it interesting that they basically state that, using maximum systems already developed and in service with the US Navy and for a 20 ship build over a few short years in the near future, they are looking at more than US$ 800M as unit cost.

That would translate to more than 1.1B$ CAN each. So the forecasted cost of $30B CAN for 15 Canadian warships to be built over 15 years or so and delivering a more complex and powerful "frigate" (the type 26) - in other words at about 2B$ CAN each on average - is not looking too badly in comparison. Remember before chiming in here that we are talking about the cost to build only in both cases and the overall Canadian figure of 60B$ CAN is for all project costs, including parts, maintenance, and operation over the life of the ships.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 68,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,331
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2019, 15:32:51 »
Oldgateboatdriver:

Quote
overall Canadian figure of 60B$ CAN is for all project costs, including parts, maintenance, and operation over the life of the ships

I don't think so--this what the government says:

Quote
...
SSE estimates these ships will cost $56-60 billion. Further costs for personnel, operations, and maintenance for the life cycle of the CSC ships are greatly influenced by the ship design and will therefore only be available later in the process...
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page

Note that "Further costs".

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 137,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,566
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2019, 16:17:12 »
Mark:

I am using the figures from the PBO report, which I trust a lot more than figures of "SSE", which as you know stands for "Strong Secure Engaged". Basically political figures put in a political document for political consumption, that just happen to match the overall program cost estimated by the PBO. A nice way of being able to say: See, we knew the PBO was right - we even came under our estimate - if the PBO was correct, while having some slack (15B$ worth of slack actually) if things go pear shape on them and the actual construction price skyrockets.

Here is the reference to the PBO report.

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

You will note that his figures for the actual ships building cost averages at 1.66 B$ CAN in FY 2017 dollars and 2.73 B$ in "then-year" dollars, which means the actual cost of the ship as paid in the year it will be paid (i.e. likely lower than average for the first five or six ship and higher for the last five or six, with the last one costing the most due to inflation). The relevant figure here is the "total production cost" figure only.

As you know, it is the cost in constant FY terms that is used to truly compare - and therefore the one in FY 2017. The PBO's report figured on contract let out in 2018 (hasn't occurred yet) and construction starting in 2021 ( won't happen government now says "early" 2020's, which everybody seems to think means 2024, mmmmaaaayyybeeee 2023. So I've adjusted the figure for FY 2019 dollars and that is how I get the 30B$ CAN figure and about 2B$ CAN unit price.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 68,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,331
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2019, 17:14:34 »
All I can say is that we are paying well over market rate to a monopoly builder, with very limited experience in situ, that the gov't cannot let fail (and from much that is said here is a crummy company)--and if, gosh, 15 CSCs can't be afforded what will we pay per ship for a lower number?

No way to run a...but that's Canadian defence procurement (both parties), folks.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 134,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,163
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2019, 21:02:40 »
Sadly from a political perspective, I can`t see a government not including Irving in any ship building program, the political cost is to high and not enough balls to say no to them. As far as I am concerned, both Davie and Seaspan pulled up their socks without major federal contracts to support them, I have to think that divesting irving of the shipbuilding and overhauling the management team with better supervision and demands on the workers would be a good thing for the east coast shipyards.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 68,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,331
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2019, 21:12:38 »
Ah the Irvings, purchasers (one way or another) of political parties, or, third-world politics.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 68,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,331
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: USN To Buy Real Frigates Now
« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2019, 13:13:01 »
Latest on USN's new FFG(X) frigates:

Quote
Navy Issues Draft RFP for FFG(X) Next-Generation Frigate

The Navy has issued a draft request for proposal to design and build its planned class of 20 next-generation guided-missile frigates (FFG(X)).

Posted late Friday [March 1], the detailed design and construction RFP draft will serve as a practice run for shipbuilders to pitch their designs for the small surface combatants that are set to follow on the two classes of Littoral Combat Ships currently in production.

The document lays out a schedule to produce 10 ships — a lead ship that would deliver 72 months after contract award and options for nine follow-ons hulls. Later this year, the Navy plans to issue a final detailed design and construction RFP with the contract to be awarded in 2020. Submissions for the work have to be based on an existing U.S. or allied hull currently in service as part of an ongoing rapid acquisition scheme for the class.

Friday’s draft follows the Navy’s award last year of five development contracts to shipbuilders to refine an existing parent hull design to serve as a basis for the frigate.

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Austal USA, Lockheed Martin, Fincantieri Marine and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works were awarded $15 million teach last year to refine their own frigate parent designs.

While the five shipbuilders have worked with the Navy to refine the designs, the competition for the upcoming detailed design and construction contract will be open to any competitor that meets the requirements for a pitch based on a mature parent design, the Navy said earlier this year.

As to price, earlier this year the service gave an updated range for what the follow-on ships could cost based on work down through the development contracts.

That $950 (million) was the threshold; $800 million is the objective [per ship, emphasis added]” frigate program manager with Program Executive Office Unmanned and Small Combatants Regan Campbell said in January at the Surface Navy Association symposium.

“We started closer to the $950; we are trending to very close to the $800 now. We have taken some very significant costs out of the average follow units. Lead ship? I won’t give you a number, but it is reflected in the president’s budget, which you will see shortly.”

The Navy is holding an unclassified industry day on March 19 and contract submissions for the draft are due by April 1.

In the summary of the draft RFP, the Navy sets out a vision for the new class that cast the FFG(X)s in a role as a major sensor node in an emerging integrated Navy tactical battle network.

“As part of the Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations Concept, the FFG(X) small surface combatant will expand blue force sensor and weapon influence to enhance the overall fleet tactical picture while challenging adversary intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and tracking efforts,” read the summary of the effort posted on FedBizOpps.

“FFG(X) will also contribute to the Navy the nation needs by relieving large surface combatants from the stress of routine duties during operations other than war.”

In January, the service laid out in more detail the baseline capabilities for the planned class that include:

    A fixed-face Raytheon Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) that will serve as the primary air search radar.
    At least 32 Mark 41 Vertical Launch System cells that could field Standard Missile 2 Block IIICs or RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSM) and a planned vertically launched anti-submarine warfare weapon.
    COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System based on the Aegis Combat System
[emphasis added].
    Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) datalink that would allow the frigate to share targeting information with other ships and aircraft.
    Space, weight and cooling for 8 to 16 Over-the-Horizon Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles
    An aviation detachment that includes an MH-60R Seahawk helicopter and an MQ-8C Firescout Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.
    AN/SQQ-89(V)15 Surface Ship Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Combat System
    AN/SQS-62 Variable Depth Sonar.
    SLQ-32(V)6 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 electronic warfare suite with allowances to include SEWIP Block 3 Lite in the future.
    Space, weight and cooling reservation for a 150-kilowatt laser.

While the Navy hasn’t been explicit about the connection, the inclusion of the high-bandwidth datalinks on FFG(X) hint at an important role for the class to provide command and control and targeting information to the Navy’s emerging family of unmanned surface vehicles.




Proposed Government Furnished Equipment for FFG(X) [included in unit cost of ships?

https://news.usni.org/2019/03/02/navy-issues-draft-rfp-ffgx-next-generation-frigate

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.