The new FFG

"Don't Tread On Me" The historical along with current aspects of the largest navy in the world.
Joined: 21 Oct 2015, 02:58

13 Jan 2018, 03:26 #1561

Breaking Defence has another article out, and this table of Government Furnished Equipment is interesting:
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/nav ... m-testbed/


Note the notional provision of the 57mm gun, the Longbow Hellfire missile system, plus the selection of the EASR as the preferred radar outfit, and the use of COMBATSS-21 as the CMS.

Also note that the USN is targeting a price of $800 million per ship, with a maximum allowable cost per ship of $950 million, not a target price of $950 million, which was being reported by many.
Reply
Like

Joined: 11 Apr 2006, 12:54

13 Jan 2018, 11:04 #1562

.

WHY (!) only one helicopter ?

(By which I really mean, helicopters are REALLY useful, and space for helicopters can traded into drones in the future) 

.
Umbra Sumus
Reply
Like

Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 07:40

13 Jan 2018, 13:26 #1563

HK wrote: Several updates on FFG(X) coming this week at SNA 2018... let’s start listing them on this thread.

Update #1: LM’s FFG(X) proposal



If you liked the overweight, short legged, awkward LCS 1 design, you are going to LOVE what these geniuses are offering now... (I especially like wrapping the radars and all their cooling equipment around the gas turbine exhausts... nice touch).
57mm Bofors gun moved forward ? Green water-adverse Surface-to-Surface Missile Module right behind ? Over-accumulation of weapons forward ? Brilliant...



 
"We need to get closer to that Dane mentality" - Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, NAVSEA Chief Engineer, March 2015 ASNE Day.
Reply
Like

Joined: 12 Apr 2009, 18:07

13 Jan 2018, 14:22 #1564

MattReloaded wrote:
 Green water-adverse Surface-to-Surface Missile Module right behind ?

What? The bow isn't an optimum location of course, but Harpoon canisters are pretty hardy AFAIK:





The CG stern mounts are regularly exposed to beam/quartering seas. I was on a Spruance DD which sits a foot or two higher in the water, and we had to move the stern lookout up to the flight deck during rough seas because it wasn't uncommon for the fantail to have some green water rolling across it. That's just normal winter North Atlantic rough, not even big storm rough.

But I do agree on an LCS-based FF being a piece of junk.
Last edited by FreshAirSnipe on 13 Jan 2018, 14:24, edited 1 time in total.
Fear. It's the oldest tool of power. If you're distracted by fear of those around you, it keeps you from seeing the actions of those above.
Reply
Like

Joined: 18 Oct 2014, 18:37

13 Jan 2018, 14:24 #1565

MattReloaded wrote:
HK wrote: Several updates on FFG(X) coming this week at SNA 2018... let’s start listing them on this thread.

Update #1: LM’s FFG(X) proposal



If you liked the overweight, short legged, awkward LCS 1 design, you are going to LOVE what these geniuses are offering now... (I especially like wrapping the radars and all their cooling equipment around the gas turbine exhausts... nice touch).
57mm Bofors gun moved forward ? Green water-adverse Surface-to-Surface Missile Module right behind ? Over-accumulation of weapons forward ? Brilliant...



 
The LM FFG(X) is only 125m in length, weapons forward reflects the ~50% of deck space taken by flight deck and hanger, the Danish Iver Huitfeldt is 138.7m;  Italian FREMM is 144.6m; Navantia F105/Hobart 147.2m
 
Also noticeable are the bilge keels added to the rear of LM FFG(X) semi planning flat hull to mitigate rolling caused by the larger/higher deck superstructure needed to accommodate the EASR three fixed panesl with its top heavy T/R modules.
 
Raises the question is the mandated EASR dictating larger ships for the FFG(X), the Enterprise is only 100,000T ship:)
Reply
Like

Joined: 22 Jun 2007, 22:58

13 Jan 2018, 15:03 #1566

OldNick wrote:
 
Also noticeable are the bilge keels added to the rear of LM FFG(X) semi planning flat hull to mitigate rolling caused by the larger/higher deck superstructure needed to accommodate the EASR three fixed panesl with its top heavy T/R modules.
 
Raises the question is the mandated EASR dictating larger ships for the FFG(X), the Enterprise is only 100,000T ship:)
EASR shouldn't be all that big or heavy.  I'd expect it to be considerably lighter than SPY-1F, for example.  It only requires 18% of the RMA modules as the much larger SPY-6 on the Flt III Burkes.  
Reply
Like

Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 07:40

13 Jan 2018, 15:05 #1567

FreshAirSnipe wrote:
MattReloaded wrote:
 Green water-adverse Surface-to-Surface Missile Module right behind ?

That's just normal winter North Atlantic rough, not even big storm rough.
That's Lake Michigan : 

"We need to get closer to that Dane mentality" - Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, NAVSEA Chief Engineer, March 2015 ASNE Day.
Reply
Like

Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 07:40

13 Jan 2018, 15:53 #1568

FreshAirSnipe wrote:
MattReloaded wrote: Green water-adverse Surface-to-Surface Missile Module right behind ?
What? The bow isn't an optimum location of course, but Harpoon canisters are pretty hardy AFAIK:
Here is the Surface-to-Surface Missile Module. Nothing to do with Harpoon canisters.

"We need to get closer to that Dane mentality" - Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, NAVSEA Chief Engineer, March 2015 ASNE Day.
Reply
Like

Joined: 21 Oct 2015, 02:58

13 Jan 2018, 16:19 #1569

Phil Gollin wrote: .

WHY (!) only one helicopter ?

(By which I really mean, helicopters are REALLY useful, and space for helicopters can traded into drones in the future) 

.
They are also noting that a UAS is also being provided, likely a MQ-8C. So, we will have a MH-60R + MQ-8C combo on the flight deck.
Reply
Like

Joined: 21 Nov 2010, 00:24

13 Jan 2018, 16:38 #1570

"Also noticeable are the bilge keels added to the rear of LM FFG(X) semi planning flat hull"

A hull that has no business on any warship bigger than a missile boat. The design is incurably flawed literally from the keel up.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy."

--Ambrose Bierce
Reply
Like