USN To Buy Real Frigates Now

[tomahawk6]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

57mm gun only, surprised so small, would have expected 76mm to 5"

 

[a_majoor]

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.

 

[tomahawk6]

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.

 

[FSTO]

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For you US friend, special deal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt-class_frigate

 

[MarkOttawa]

Foreign designs OK:

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

 

[tomahawk6]

Looks nice. They should make the USN an offer.Maybe lease purchase ? 

 

[Karel Doorman]

Looks nice. They should make the USN an offer.Maybe lease purchase ? 

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. [

 

[tomahawk6]

Some like the Italian FREMM design but the Danes have a solid frigate that is easily upgradable.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Maybe USN will buy what RCN gets for CSC so can maintain interoperabilitiy :rofl:.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

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):

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:

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

 

[tomahawk6]

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

 

[Karel Doorman]

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  >  )

If it must carry Spy/Aegis,then the US is better off with the Fridtjof Nansen-class,wich allready has that.(Norwegian frigates)

 

[tomahawk6]

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/

 

[MarkOttawa]

FWIW, radical thought at Canadian Defence Review (via MILNEWS.ca Blog, scroll down https://milnewsca.wordpress.com/2017/07/14/news-140920edt-141320utc/ ):

...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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

 

[Karel Doorman]

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")

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Because the wheel is connected to a trough full of money.  [

 

[Underway]

Because the wheel is connected to a trough full of money that flows into the US military-industrial complex [

Fixed that for you...