New US Navy FFG(x) and 1/350 model of the Lockheed entry

Jeff Head said:

In order to fully understand this competition you have to understand the history of the LIttoral Combat Ship (LCS) experience the US Nay has had over the last ten years (which has been sophomoric at best and very embarrassing in any case).

What started as a competition to produce a very fast, very modular frigate sized vessel and a competition between two contenders, Lockheed with a mono-steel hulled vessel and the Trimaran, Aluminum vessel from Austral, under the Obama administration went far awry.

What was supposed to be the capability of replacing modules to give the vessels the ability to change from anti-surface, to anti-submarine, to counter-mine, and other capabilities within a 24-36 hour period, came apart at the seems, with it requiring several days to a week to make the change, and several modules that simply were not working. In addition to that, it was decided to produce both vessels to build up the 56 vessels desired (meaning 28 of each). Finally, the vessels themselves in any configuration, including the anti-surface warfare module, were incapable of defending themselves or having a hope to win in a confrontation between any peer nation frigate, or even their corvettes.

The light sensor package, the lack of any long range, over the horizon missiles, the light combat build/construction, and the very small crews which in any major damage would be too small to handle war fighting and damage control, made this unavoidable.

In order to address this the US Navy ultimately, despite the Obama administration attempts to slow down or derail the efforts, produced requirements and changes to cut the overall number of vessels and round the rest out with a Fast Frigate (FF) design that would require an upgrade of sensors, armor, and weapons to allow at least 20 vessels to have the necessary sensors and armament to make them competitive, and to be able to back fit these upgrades to vessels already built..

Finally, after the elections in 2016, the ultimate requirement produced a need to cut the overall LCS production to 24, adding 16 FF vessels for a total of 40, with the ability to upgrade already produced LCS vessels to the FF standard. This standard basically added a SeaRAM defensive anti-air system, added over the horizon missiles to augment 24 hellfire misiles, added some sensor upgrades, and some additional armor. This helps a lot, but would not make the vessels able to really take on peer nation frigates all to well.

In order to do that, a competition for this new FFG(X) was introduced to replace the remaining 16-17 vessels originally envisioned with a 20 ship strong class of FFGs (called FFG(X) with the competition between the contenders named above. If the current adminmistration holds office after 2020, it is my surmize that more than 20 of these vessels may be built...and that would be a good thing.

The new vessel would be fully FFG capable, would be larger, would not be modular but would be multi-mission requiring the produced vessels to be able to be able to perform anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine-warfare, and anti-air warfare at the same time, with a medium ranged (out to 45-50 miles) anti-air capability, which the LCS and has been removed from the FF.

So, as I say, I believe the US is most likely to pick the Lockheed Martin design. Lockheed has the most experience and is in the best position to produce a vessel that will be able to communicate with the rest of the US Fleet, particularly the AEGIS class destroyers and cruisers for cooperative engagement, and most capable to produce a fully combat worthy, strong guided missile frigate with the flexability and armament necessary for the US Navy needs into the 2040s and 2050s.

Click to expand...

Tam said:

Something odd here.

You do realize that Lockheed Martin per se, does not produce ships. It enters partnerships with shipyards, and in this particular case, its a foreign one --- Fincantieri Marine --- which is Italian. Fincantieri owns the US soil shipyards that the current Lockheed Martin LCS are being built. If the Lockheed entry is the one that is accepted, this ship will be built in the same shipyards. Ironically if the FREMM frigate is chosen, which is being pushed by Fincantieri, the same ship will also be built in the same shipyards.

Austal USA, the makers of the Independence class, is a subsidiary of Austal, which is an Australian company.

While Lockheed Martin does provide some measure of the electronics, the crown jewels of the electronics --- the radars --- are provided by Raytheon. Regardless of how the original ships of these proposals looks like, they will all be "Americanized", fitted with the same Raytheon radars and other US equipment like Mk. 41 and SeaRAM.

The ship there that is 100% designed in the USA and is made in a US shipyard without any foreign partnership is the Hunter Ingalls entry. But that one looks a bit dated.

The USN made the FFG(X) proposals knowing there would be foreign entries, and it requires existing designs and off the shelf parts. I don't think its bad to have foreign participation with this project --- it helps strengthen alliances.

Personally I don't think the Lockheed design gives much room for growth. There is also the lack of hull sonar but I guess its no longer that important and it isn't an FFG(X) requirement. Capability wise, I would go with the FREMM. It has room for growth. One interesting feature on FREMM is that it has a second command room that can be used for an admiral. The Navantia entry is the one that has the most work cut out for it, since it already has integrated most of its parts. However, and ironically, the FFG(X) requirement means that the SPY-1D radar, which is Lockheed Martin's, would have to be changed to Raytheon's. But again, still has the least work needed to do. However Bath Iron Works appears to be in trouble politically for the issues on the Zumwalt, as suggested with the USN threw more Flight III Burke contracts to Hunter Ingalls when the proportion is supposed to be 50/50. Again, this also shows some political leniency to Hunter Ingalls, which although the most conservative looking design, happens to be the best US shipyard now, as they make the Ford class carriers and the Burkes.

By the way, awesome model construction, I am very impressed with your work.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

and they will have room for both an MH-60R and the unmanned VUAV in the hanger

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

I am very familia with ow Lockheed works and had worke with the LCS Freedomc lass.The Lockheed tea, actually is the prime and is patrnered with Marineette MArin, NOT Fincanteri. The Fancanteri proposal is teamed also with Marnette to build a FREMM variant vessel which is a pure Italian design. MArtin had put together a much enhanced Freedom designed that uses a bit of Freedm, a bit of Arliegn Burks, and a bit of Zumwalt with assiciated sub-contractors. Yes it will be built in those same yards here in America that the LCS was built in. But the design is much more American than all but the Ingalls design in terms of overall pridciton, and is, as I stated, much more capable of communication in cooperative engagement, and does in fact have room for growth.

The will be able to add an0other 16 cell MK-41 if necessary, they are already putting the Laser System on, and they will have room for both an MH-60R and the unmanned VUAV in the hanger.

Any of these designs are better than theoriginal LCS and have the caability that the original LCS should have had. I am appy that this has finally been recognized even after 24 LCS are built...and that the LCS will be upgraded in terms of weaponry and some sensors.

At any rate, as I have stated, overall I believe the Lockheed design to be most suitable and this is why I have built the model. Time will tell, this year I hope, on who gets chosen.

Best regards.

Click to expand...