054/A FFG Thread II

[Lethe]

There is a simple solution for what the USN is facing, if they are smart enough to take it :
Take the Perry, strip everything off it but the hull, stretch it by another 10-20 per cent, and rebuilt it using the tech from the Burke. Problem solved.

I'm not sure if it's that simple or efficient to update a 1970s hull design like the Perry.

The bungling of LCS has left USN with no time to seek a clean-sheet solution, or appetite for the risk involved in that path, yet the candidates currently on the western market are less than ideal. The French and Italians are now pursuing "intermediate frigate" designs to follow on from the larger FREMMs, and of course the British plan to get around to Type 31 eventually, but in 2018 the pickings are slim indeed...

Still, it is a mess of USN's own making. Project management!

 

[Iron Man]

There is a simple solution for what the USN is facing, if they are smart enough to take it :
Take the Perry, strip everything off it but the hull, stretch it by another 10-20 per cent, and rebuilt it using the tech from the Burke. Problem solved.

There is no "tech from the Burke" that a rebuilt Perry can make use of. If anything, a rebuilt Perry for the USN should probably more closely emulate Turkey's G-class than anything related to the Burke.

 

[Blitzo]

There is a simple solution for what the USN is facing, if they are smart enough to take it :
Take the Perry, strip everything off it but the hull, stretch it by another 10-20 per cent, and rebuilt it using the tech from the Burke. Problem solved.

That does not sound particularly simple. Whether you mean modifying existing hulls or building new hulls from the ground up, it is quite complex.

If the USN had chosen to make such a choice back in the early 2000s then maybe it would've been sensible. But by now, it makes more sense I think to adopt an off the shelf design for their new frigate.

 

[Blitzo]

There is no doubt that China has 'won' the last decade of competition between LCS and 054A.

And there is a good chance it will win the next decade as well with 054B vs. FFG(X). Because the FFG(X) candidates fall into two categories:

(1) Large European designs that are not really affordable.
(2) LCS-based designs that inherit most of their problems, even pointlessly so: a semi-planning hull on a ship that no longer has the power-to-weight ratio to make use of it (Lockheed's proposal).

Indeed, when you step back and take a look at the last generation of military development, what is most impressive about China is not the leaps in technology, nor even the scale of production, but rather the project management. Yes, good project management is easier when "playing catch-up", but nonetheless China's success in this regard is very impressive, particularly when contrasted with the flailings of the US and many other western nations.

One design that I think may work well is Huntington Ingalls Legend cutter derived frigate, but I'm not sure how serious of contention it is under for FFGX.

But I do laugh a little bit when the Type 26 is offered as a frigate design, considering the RN's Type 26 will at full displacement be a few hundred tons shy from a Type 45.

 

[latenlazy]

There is no doubt that China has 'won' the last decade of competition between LCS and 054A.

And there is a good chance it will win the next decade as well with 054B vs. FFG(X). Because the FFG(X) candidates fall into two categories:

(1) Large European designs that are not really affordable.
(2) LCS-based designs that inherit most of their problems, even pointlessly so: a semi-planning hull on a ship that no longer has the power-to-weight ratio to make use of it (Lockheed's proposal).

Indeed, when you step back and take a look at the last generation of military development, what is most impressive about China is not the leaps in technology, nor even the scale of production, but rather the project management. Yes, good project management is easier when "playing catch-up", but nonetheless China's success in this regard is very impressive, particularly when contrasted with the flailings of the US and many other western nations.

Beyond project management, just as impressive is how competently and tightly they’ve developed their weapons and systems concepts. I think a major cause of the US’s problems with weapons development and procurement has been that a greater emphasis has been placed on concepts designed around conflicting purposes using novel and theoretical technologies rather than concepts designed to meet specific functional objectives with technologies that are tailored for their purpose. Perhaps this is in part because for whatever reason the PLA has been able to define those functional objectives more clearly than their US counterparts, or perhaps being the laggard also imposes a more serious regard for risk management, or perhaps the scope of needs that must be met is simply much narrower for China than the US.

Of course, one could easily argue that the concepts the PLA is building their technological capabilities around remain largely untested and the real measure of their worth can only be judged in battle, and that would be right, but at least on face value they seem to be delivering on concepts that have much greater impact on the strategic calculus of military balance than their competition.

 

[B.I.B.]

One design that I think may work well is Huntington Ingalls Legend cutter derived frigate, but I'm not sure how serious of contention it is under for FFGX.

But I do laugh a little bit when the Type 26 is offered as a frigate design, considering the RN's Type 26 will at full displacement be a few hundred tons shy from a Type 45.

I was wondering no one had brought that up earlier.I remember the idea was tossed around last year about adapting the Coast Guard cutter A little O/T ,In the article I came across the cutter "Hamiliton". on her first deployment landed cocaine with of a street value of a billion dollars from her drug interdictions. So shes more or less paid for herself. Perhaps that's what they could get their new LCS to do as well.

 

[Jura The idiot]

LOL I skimmed over the last two pages here which left me with an impression as if many of you thought anything beyond USN LCSs was something real, while all what is real is the USN is mandated to pay for 26 LCSs

"Ships 1 through 4 in the program were procured with single-ship contracts.
The next 22 ships in the program (ships 5 through 26) were procured under two 10-ship block buy contracts that the Navy awarded to the two LCS builders in December 2010, and which were later extended in each case to include an 11th ship. The Navy sought and received legislative authority from Congress in 2010 to award these block buy contracts."
at the bottom of p. 4 (8 out of 52 in PDF) of Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
May 19, 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and basically don't have armament for them Jan 12, 2018

...

about two and a half years ago, inside the USNI News (note the end of September below)
May 16, 2015

... Program Executive Officer for LCS Rear Adm. Brian Antonio ...
Overall, though, he was optimistic about achieving IOC by the end of September.

“We’ve proven that the systems work,” he said.
“Will we have issues every now and then? Yes we will. Some of these systems have been in development a long time, it’s time to bring them together and do the end-to-end run and prove them out.”

today, inside

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

quoting
Capt. Ted Zobel, the program manager for all three LCS mission modules. ...
... the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(MCM) module will enter testing in 2020, reach Initial Operational Capability on Independence variants by late 2020 or early 2021, and IOC on Freedom variants by late ’21.

as the whole point of the USN LCSs is to feed two shipyards; now they call it "LCS designs are stable and delivering off dual hot production lines":
Tuesday at 7:15 AM

"success story of hulls":

"success story of modules":

from Document: Naval Sea Systems Command SNA 2018 U.S. Navy Littoral Combat Ship Briefings

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and so called FFG(X) competition is yet another round of kidding (but whom?!), after so many years of the destruction of the USN lighter surface force
OK I won't pile up quotes here (LOL I guess you know I could) about how it went with the USN lighter surface force, hey just look at what's going in DC 22 minutes ago

I've read somewhere Military salaries are covered until Feb 1, now noticed
Sen. Doug Jones co-sponsors bill to pay military during government shutdown

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[kurutoga]

It's hard to believe what went wrong in US Navy procurement. Labor cost along can't explain the vast cost differences (054A is around $200 mil, the smaller LCS is above $400). Maybe they were victims of formalism to serve politicians, maybe because the oppositions were too weak. In any case the past success were built on a pragmatic approach. Given the fact US is almost always involved in at least one war, there are plenty of opportunities to get whatever process fixed.

Have some confidence in the US. One thing you have to understand is the media in the US is always critical of the government. So overall there is sense of negativity existed if you only read the media.

 

[mr.bean]

has anyone mentioned the French Lafeyette? there is a good frigate the USN can easily get. the French would love to sell, order 20 of those and the USN problems will be solved.

 

[kurutoga]

has anyone mentioned the French Lafeyette? there is a good frigate the USN can easily get. the French would love to sell, order 20 of those and the USN problems will be solved.

The lineage from La Fayette-class frigate to Type 054A can be written as a three-season soap opera.