The Navy is going to increase the Constellation’s length and width. From a Breaking Defense article,
The Navy has chosen to elongate and widen the hull of its next-generation Constellation-class frigate relative to the parent design, but the officer overseeing its production says the internal layout will largely remain the same. … (1)
Well, if you can’t trust the program officer of the LCS
Zumwalt Ford Constellation, who can you trust?
While some changes are to be expected to meet the Navy’s needs, enlarging the hullform itself has the potential to change where components in the ship must be placed, as well as the overall cost. (1)
From a CRS report,
F/MM [Fincantieri/Marinette Marine of Marinette, WI] officials state that its FFG-62 design is based on the Italian variant, which has a length of 474.4 feet, a beam of 64.6 feet, a draft of 28.5 feet (including the bow sonar bulb), and a displacement of 6,900 tons.26 F/MM’s FFG-62 design is slightly longer and heavier—it has a length of 496 feet, a beam of 65 feet, a draft of 23 to 24 feet (there is no bow sonar bulb), and an estimated displacement of 7,400 tons, or about 76% as much as the displacement of a Flight III DDG-51 destroyer. (2)
That’s an increase in length of 22 ft (4.5%) and an increase in displacement of 500 tons (7.2%).
This is exactly how runaway costs begin … just a little change. So, now we have a new hull with new internal layouts, new and untested sea keeping performance, new reserve weight margins, new stability margins and performance, etc. This is no longer a parent design, it’s a new design that shares only the parent’s name.
The Navy’s entire [fundamentally flawed] premise for this program was to minimize risk and cost by insisting on a mature parent design. Well, when you change the ship’s length and width you no longer have a parent design in anything but name. It’s a brand new ship design and brand new ship designs have one absolutely sure characteristic: they cost far, far more than anticipated.
There is also the issue of the Navy yet again lying to Congress. The Navy sold the frigate program on the basis of minimal risk and minimal cost due to the use of the parent design but, apparently, had no intention of abiding by that restriction. The hull dimension changes were not something that the Navy suddenly thought up yesterday. They knew from the start that they had no intention of retaining the parent hull. This is more fraud perpetrated on Congress by the Navy. It’s beginning to look as if the ‘parent design’ concept was just a marketing ploy to get Congress to go along with what the Navy intended from the start to be a basically new frigate design.
The Navy has already issued multiple construction contracts for multiple frigates before the first one is even complete. This is a repeat of the disastrous LCS approach where 55 ships were committed before the first was built and lessons could be incorporated and fed back into production. This approach was deemed acceptable only because the parent design was already mature and proven. Well, we now see that isn’t true – it’s a new design.
_____________________________________
(1)Breaking Defense, “Navy Says Constellation Hull Change Won’t Affect Internal Design ”, Justin Katz, 4-Aug-2021,
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/navy-says-constellation-hull-change-wont-affect-internal-design/
(2)Congressional Research Service, “Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate (Previously FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress”, 11-Feb-2021, p.14-15
And so it begins. I suppose the so far useless Ford needs an
ReplyDeleteescort. Out of curiosity looked up the numbers for an Atlanta class cruiser of WW2: weight 6718, length 530 ft. and beam53 ft. So they are going to build a frigate the size of a light cruiser. And, I assume since they have decided to build a different ship than authorized by the Congress the gold plating will really begin. They don’t intend to ever fight another war, do they?
The Constellation is going to be around 80% the displacement of the Burke, 97% of the length, 70%(?)+ of the cost and ONLY 33% OF THE WEAPONS (VLS)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Delete"They don’t intend to ever fight another war, do they?"
Not successfully!
You are accurate, yet misleading,to the point you have a guy responding thinking the Navy is " building a different ship than what Congress authorized ", and that simply isn't true.the exact dimensions,measurements and weight are unchanged from the proposal Fincantierri submitted,a nd Congress approved. You aren't going to disagree with that narrow statement, are you? Saying the bid was different by~ 20' from the "parent" design,and cl a icing they've changed specs from the proposal are 2 entirely different things Congess and th rest of us were well aware of these differences at the time TY he proposal was submitted and nothing has changed as once that time.
Delete"The Constellation is going to be around 80% the displacement of the Burke, 97% of the length, 70%(?)+ of the cost and ONLY 33% OF THE WEAPONS (VLS)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
DeleteConsidering these facts, as well as the Total Cost of Ownership that grows with a new sort of ship in the fleet, I wonder why the Navy is even bothering with Constellation- just buy Burkes.
"the exact dimensions,measurements and weight are unchanged from the proposal Fincantierri submitted"
DeleteI don't know the proposal submittal dimensions but that's irrelevant. The point is that the entire foundation of the concept of using parent designs was to eliminate risk by using an existing, proven design. This is not that. We have violated the foundation of the concept and assumed much greater risk and cost.
As far as Congress, I doubt they examine these things closely enough to discern these kinds of changes.
I get that that is YOUR point, but it wasn't mine. my point is you are representing an unannounced and unanticipated change in Dimensions. No dimensions have been changed since the contract was awarded.
DeleteAre the refined shipbuilding techniques and processes worked by the Italians for this class of ship are thrown out the window? I thought Italian SMEs would be at the shipyards advising on replicating a carbon copy of their ship design. It seems most of that is out of the window.
ReplyDeleteAs you pointed out ComNavOps, dimension changes significantly increase program risk. As if they can go into CAD software and simply tell it to increase the internal layout dimensions, which never works anyway.
Why did they pick the Italian FREMM design in the first place if it didn’t meet the needs of the Navy? Shouldn’t the Navy told the Italians to update the design before even awarding the contract.
"Why did they pick the Italian FREMM design in the first place if it didn’t meet the needs of the Navy?"
DeleteIndeed. A most astute question for which I have no answer.
The general FREMM design seems to allow for notable variation in displacement between the French and Italian variants.
DeleteI'm less concerned with the fact that the US Navy decided they needed a bit more customization to the hull, than the fact that they decided this at the last second as they're getting ready to lay down the first batch of hulls.
Last-minute changes have a bad tendency to causing life-long problems because they go in without proper engineering analysis and impact assessment on everything else.
Maybe... just maybe they should have stuck with the original plan for the first couple ships, done a detailed shakedown, and *then* decide if they need that extra displacement for the next flight.
Having the initial ships mostly working at a slightly less capable level sure beats the hell out of ships that are capable on paper and unusable gremlin-infested basket cases in reality.
This is NOT a last minute change,and why is it being presented as such?
DeleteThe CRS 2018 report makes no mention of dimensions. You claim that the enlarged dimensions were known from the beginning. Do you have a reference showing that?
DeleteBy the way, the post does not say that the dimensions are a last minute change. You seem to have drawn that conclusion yourself. The post merely states that the Navy has modified the parent design and now has laid the groundwork for increased cost and performance risk by abandoning the parent design concept.
From Naval News, the day the contract was awarded:
Deletehttps://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/04/fincantieris-fremm-wins-us-navy-ffgx-frigate-competition/
Slide of tech spec sheet at end of article. length and beam same as now, and remember, this is what was published DAY OF contract award,By Fincantierri, and the fact is this slide had been kicking around since they submitted their proposal even earlier. Also states towed array AND VDS.
Also mentions AEGIS baseline 10 specced.
Also, id didn't say you said it, I said you "represented" it as a change, and you did, and I made the specific point it was misleading others, and you can't read the comments and reactions in this thread and deny that. I chose my words carefully, and stand by them.
Are we now claiming the fincan design DID NOT meet the RFP, the "needs of the Navy"? Or are we representing our own desires as "the needs of the Navy"? Because you ask " Indeed why did they?". Ship was bang on to the RFP and met or exceeded every mandatory spec, and most of the optionals as well
DeleteThey did the exact dimensions the displacement the bean all of this were published and was open sores and their proposal that was out there for over a year before it was accepted by the Navy and nothing in the dimension has changed since the proposal was submitted or accepted
ReplyDeleteHaving said all that I readily concede the fact that the changes from the original Parent design can well be construed as a different ship design all together,but honestly all this was debated 2 years ago when they put their proposal forward to begin with. The ONLY point I'm trying to make is that while it's legitimate to say that the firm isn't apparent design if you want to go down that route that's fine but representing that there are changes underway difference from what was authorized is misleading and mistaken and simply not factual. Not quite the same thing as a runaway program with the Navy changing things as they go like they did with the LPS and the sumwalt at the F-35 because whatever this is , so far , it's not that
ReplyDeleteSeems a lot I'd mention has been covered above so I'll add some additions.
ReplyDelete- Gensets will be different type and larger. I suspect the motors will also differ.
- Props will be fixed and not CPP.
- Why plan for a mixed LCS style detachment when the parent can easily take 2 H-60.
- The VDS is clearly at risk, just buy CAPTAS 4 aand be done.
- If the ship grows 5 more feet the new launch platform at MMC won't fit it.
- If they want to add a bow sonar they probably can't without exceeding the Seawaymax draft limit.
- We still have nothing post announcement that clearly indicates strike length Mk 41 cells. Italian Fremm only has Sylver 5M so even tactical Mk 41 are longer and heavier. French Fremm only has 16 of the 32 cells available for strike length. Clearly the lighter gun can account for that difference. Specs only ask for SM-2 Blk IIIC and ESSM Blk II with future VL-ASROC. That spec doesn't need strike length or illuminators. That's fine, but seems to be less than future proof.
strike length cells w we re species and confirmed,as no other length is tested and approved for US Navy use.designer said strike length in interview with CEO of Fincantierri
Delete-Gensets and motors ARE different
Delete- The proposal that was submitted and accepted had both a towed array AND VDS. If it only has one or the other now, that is a change.
- I thought the syncrolift they are building is open ended..
- You don't suppose they omitted a bow sonar because they can't fit it where they are building it, as you mention, do you? Would they be so short sighted? It's Possible..
- lack of any illuminators is un-nerving.
- I twice dug up statements from both PEO and builder that it will have strike length cells. took considerable digging, but I accept Fincan CEO's statement it will have strike length. I think no other model is currently tested and approved for US installation. ALL US ships have only strike length. Shorter VLS means more testing and certifications and hassle in the end, so they went with what they know, bottom line .
I do wonder, though, being as we are using all US made parts, with US workers in a US yard, and using omnly italian design and builder ownership, will our FREMM have the same silencing design elements present in the foreign FREMMS that make them so well suited for ASW?
-Did they go with only one helo and drone so as not to endanger Burke Buys? Was that the same consideration for only 32 VLS, when hull can support 48?
- will they fit 30mm and 25 mm guns on it, or typhoon mounts? Or are we sticking with generic .50 cals long term?
- I doubt euro construction techniques will be used.If not, then along with all the other changes ( primarily combat systems), it kind of does look like ComNavOps has a point, mainly, is this really even a FREMM?
Either way, I like the ship, and the design, except for the single helo, no bow sonar, dinky 57mm gun, and only 32 VLS.
all things considered, you can't call this an ASW ship, with no persistant ability to either track or attack all ASW contacts.As such I consider it a poor escort.
HOWEVER, every single breakdown of this ship overlooks it's main asset, it's striking power, those 16 NSMs. Those, along with SM-2 blk IIIC, and ESSM blk II ( both of which can be used in an ASuW anti ship role, BTW) Give the ship the ability to engage enemy surface combatants and more than likely come out on top. This ship can fight for intel, screen a CBG, and engage in surface attack, probably better than even a burke canas burkes have no dedicated ASuW missile, except for a few old leaky Harpoons on flight 1&II ships.
"burkes have no dedicated ASuW missile"
DeleteThe Navy's plan was to have vertical launch LRASM for the Burkes but that plan has either died or been put on extended hold. I would assume that at some point the Navy will put NSM on the Burkes in place of the Harpoons.
Alternatively, the NSM is reportedly capable of fitting in a VLS cell so that could become an option although I'm unaware of any program to do so.
Alternatively, the Navy wants hypersonic missiles on the Burkes so they may be dumping the anti-ship function onto the Constellations to free up the Burkes for hypersonics.
It's the Navy. Whatever plan they have will change by tomorrow!
"it's main asset, it's striking power, those 16 NSMs."
DeleteI would disagree about the NSM being the frigate's main asset. Ship to ship engagements are relatively rare in war and are likely to be even less so given China's likely operational plans which would retain their ships inside the first island chain. The NSM is nice to have, without a doubt, but the frigates main 'asset' is ASW though, worryingly, it seems not to be optimized for ASW.
"will our FREMM have the same silencing design elements present in the foreign FREMMS that make them so well suited for ASW?"
I have not seen a detailed description of the FREMM ASW quieting. Do you have a reference?
LRASM isn't panning out for the mk 41 VLS wise, even though they showed they can launch it. I think with the SM-6 ASuW ability they are going to use them, and whatever hypersonics and call it a day for ASuW capability for Burkes. Hell, the SM-6 will go at least 250 miles at mach 4 with a decent warhead.
Deleteseriously, though, if we look at EASR, and the mk 41 VLS and it's AA missiles, and it's 16 NSMs ( which can hit land targets as well as ships), how is it's main asset ASW when it has one helo and a VDS? How is that any more that an LCS with it's notional ASW package?
I see it better suited as a surface combatant.
Just got home from work ( that's why the horrible typos all day before I got home) and honestly I'm dragging to look up the FREMM silencing, if I get a chance I will. Lot of anti vibration stuff, for engines, what not, particularly on the French versions, as I recall. Supposedly very quiet and hard for sub to detect.
If we look at where they spent the money, it's in AAW and ASuW, not ASW, is what I keep being drawn back to.
Delete"how is it's main asset ASW"
DeleteI'm speaking operationally and what should be, not what is. We desperately need an affordable ASW vessel that can be obtained in large numbers. We have plenty of ASuW assets. ASuW is not our most pressing need.
I concur
Delete" I have not seen a detailed description of the FREMM ASW quieting. Do you have a reference?"
DeleteCNO: I havent seen direct articles or references either, but I do remember when the FREMM was competing for Australia's frigate program with the F100 and Type 26 that there was a tv news article showing an RAN admiral and Defence Minister Payne on board a FREMM and had a listen on the FREMM's equipment and they said the FREMM was, indeed, quiet. By then, imho, they'd be able to compare it with the F100/Hobart Class and Anzac Class ships.
I do realise that the tv clip is a quick show piece, but it seemed more genuine, than some politically correct statement they sometimes make, imho.
I can't damn find that video either, sorry
Andrew
"had a listen on the FREMM's equipment and they said the FREMM was, indeed, quiet."
DeleteListening to equipment has nothing (well, not much) to do with ASW quieting. What's important is not the sound in the air of the ship but what's transmitted, via vibrations, through the ship's structure and into the water. That's where acoustic isolation, rafting, etc. comes in. You can have a loud piece of equipment but if you acoustically isolate its vibrations, it won't transmit to the water. There's a limit, of course, because excessive noise can transmit through the air and into the structure of the ship and then into the water.
It's not the noise level as you're standing and listening, it's the transmission that's important. I hope that made sense to you.
Anyway you cut it, current Burkes have no ASuW weapon other than flt I&II, and most of those only have 2 or 4 currently carried, as the other have been withdrawn for leakage or other breakdowns due to old age. future plans of the navy, especially unfunded ones are, as you say yourself, to be taken with a grain of salt, and I wouldn't count on them either.
DeleteWhat the navy needs to do is to test the Constellation hard for two years. Test it at sea state 5 or 6, do a speed run from NY to London etc.. Then build a second one with the modifications needed and test it hard again. After you have the bugs worked out you can start the mass production.
ReplyDeleteAh, you're going to be disappointed, I'm afraid. The Navy has already awarded a contract for construction of the second frigate (USS Congress) with construction to begin before the end of the year. There won't be any testing and feedback.
DeleteI still say this was nothing but a Trojan Horse to sneak a bunch more AEGIS/AMDR platforms into the fleet.
ReplyDeleteThey took what was actually a decent ASuW/ASW GP escort and tried to turn it into a cheaper and less capable numerical replacement for the Ticos.
It's loss of persistent ASW search and attack is maddening....
DeleteIf you look at ComNavOps's recent post on Comparative Fleet Roles, you will see that we have almost an overkill of AAW platforms (Ticos, Burkes) but nothing for the ASuW/ASW escort role filled by destroyers in WWII, and only Burkes for the pure ASW role. The FREMM was pretty well positioned to address those holes until the USN started fooling with it to find a way to put AEGIS onboard. As I've said before, I think the whole purpose was to find a way to sneak more AEGIS platforms into the fleet, and to find a cheaper and less capable AEGIS platform to replace the Ticos. I guess we are going to assume that the bad guys are going to have airplanes but not submarines, which seems like a really bad assumption. Although given the saturation capability of AEGIS, giving it AEGIS with only 32 VLS cells seems a mistake.
DeleteWe need to replace the Ticos with real cruisers with more missile cells and more and bigger guns than the Ticos had. And the Constellation needs to be the modern equivalent of the WWII jack of all trades destroyer, wit emphasis on ASuW and ASW.
" I think the whole purpose was to find a way to sneak more AEGIS platforms into the fleet"
DeleteYou keep saying this but I think it's wrong for a variety of reasons:
1. The radar, while technically based on the same RMA modular construction as the AMDR is quite a bit more limited. It's only a 3x3x3 construct which will greatly limit is capabilities.
2. My understanding is that the Constellation will receive an Aegis-10 version that has been dumbed down. I'm unable to totally confirm this, as yet, but, if true, that means it will have limited capabilities compared to a Tico/Burke. The combination of limited radar and limited software strongly suggests that the Navy does not see this as a functional Tico replacement.
3. The limited number of VLS cells (32) will be mostly filled with ESSM, presumably. One also hopes the Navy will come to their senses and quickly load VL-ASROC, as well, despite designating it as a 'future' capability. The number of available cells for Standard Blk 2 will be limited and would make the ships ineffective as Tico replacements. Thus, the combination of limited radar, limited software, and limited Standard missiles renders the Constellation unsuited as a Tico replacement.
4. The Navy appears to have standardized on the RMA approach to radar so the fact that a mini-AMDR is being installed is unavoidable, in their eyes. Yes, they could have gone with a TRS-3D/4D or some such but for what the Navy sees as a multi-role ship, the mini-AMDR is logically consistent and does not necessarily indicate a covert strategy to replace Ticos with Constellations.
I think you're seeing some coincidences, like the number of Ticos and Constellations being about the same, and some similarity of equipment (RMA and dumbed down Aegis software) that doesn't really mean anything and drawing a flawed conclusion.
Of course, the Navy seldom behaves rationally so it's not impossible that you're correct but in this case I think you're seeing something that's not really there.
Yet they keep claiming it will use AEGIS baseline 10.
ReplyDeleteI saw a recent interview wtih manufacturer, and he was trying to sell the point that the common source library is really what defines AEGIS, and that the ship will have that along with CEC.
He kind of hedged, or obfusctaed when the interviewer got more specific about similarities and differences between what's on the LCS and what's on the Burkes, but they manufacturer feels justified claiming the ship has AEGIS baseline 10, abridged for frigates version. As far as control software, well, that was what he seemed to be fudging on... he couldn't be pinned down definitively.
I can't open the Feb 2021 CRS so i can't compare notes but opened the updated 30 July 2021, this comes from the most recent CRS:
ReplyDelete"As May 14, 2019, Navy information paper on expanding the cost impact of expanding the FFG-62 VLS capacity from 32 cells to 48 cells states
To grow from a 32 Cell VLS to a 48 Cell VLS necessitates an increase in the length of the ship with a small beam increase and roughly a 200-ton increase in full load displacement. This will require a resizing of the ship, readdressing stability and seakeeping analyses, and adapting ship services to accommodate the additional 16 VLS cells.
A change of this nature would unnecessarily delay detail design by causing significant disruption to ship designs. Particularly the smaller ship designs. Potential competitors have already completed their Conceptual Designs and are entering the Detail Design and Construction competition with ship designs set to accommodate 32 cells.
The cost is estimated to increase between $16M [million] and $24M [million] per ship. This includes ship impacts and additional VLS cells..."
I cant get much info on FREMM proposed dimensions from EU version to USA version, I think the 496ft was what was proposed (wiki) with 32 cells so not quite sure if the increase means 48 cells space is there but not provisioned with the extra 16 cells or if the increase is the USN 5% extra space for future growth. Hard to tell with info i could find.
"and an increase in displacement of 500 tons (7.2%)."
ReplyDeleteWill then the power system need upgrade?
Can Navy just build one or two, evaluate them to find out whatever upgrades do make sense?
Second one is already being funded and I think some money is already there for #3 and #4 so I dont expect there to be too much time in between builds. As usual USN figured there's no need to wait in between builds to learn from 1st of class mistakes.....
DeleteThat's problem.
DeleteFor a brand new major battle ship, Navy should build one and two, test run for a while, then, put all improvements and upgrades in next build. Depending on amount of modifications to decide whether a second trial run is required or not. If not, then, mass produce.
Of course, hawks will say that "we cannot wait" but can we build ships with heaps of problems and cost overruns which squeeze out other programs?
Do you believe that defense spending can keep running at current unsustainable level?
There is also another issue: time.
ReplyDeleteThis could have been an effective way to get an existing, useful ship in the fleet FAST, skipping straight to the construction part.
Instead they're tweaking and gold-plating it, so the ships will arrive ten years later, be less useful and cost more.
Go team!
That route would be buying that 12th NSC and hand it to the Navy to bolt things on.
Delete"Let's spend ourselves back into the stone age" -- that will teach the Russians and Chinese who is boss..
ReplyDeleteLots of new stuff on the Marinette Marine site. This one will make your head explode. https://futurefrigate.com/designed-for-the-sailor/
ReplyDeleteOh it's a cruise ship masquerading as a warship sigh.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs far as berthing, I could see single staterooms for CO, XO, and Department Heads, maybe 2-person for other officers, 3-person for chiefs, 6-person for acey/ducey, and 12-person for E4 and below. But rank should have some privilege, and anything more than that seems to be taking it too far. And maybe that's where I get the room to do some of the things I want to do, weapons and sensor wise.
Delete"This is exactly how runaway costs begin … just a little change"
ReplyDeleteNot sure how you can stop it, several reasons, two being Survivability and the Buy American Act
Survivability - The Navy was quite rightly hammered for the LCS design philosophy of one hit and abandon ship, the Navy has specified much higher survivability standards for the Constellation frigate which resulted in 300 tons of steel being added to FREMM and presume was the main driver for the 500 tons increase in full load displacement to 7,400 metric tons
The Buy American Act law requires US manufactured kit to be fitted, eg the Isotta Fraschini Motori DGs and the French Jeumont PMM electric motors replaced by US built MTU DG's and DRS PMM electric motors, drives etc
Size/displacement light and full load displacement in long tons (CBO figures), Constellation 6.014/7,291 vs Burke Flt III 7,597/9,714 so Constellation 79% size of Burke at light and 75% at full displacement
Cost per Navy's proposed FY2022 budget, Constellation $1,087.9 millions vs Burke $2,401.7 millions, Constellation 45% cost of a Burke.
A couple of notes,
Constellation SCN build budget includes $85 million for preparation and equipment procurement for a land-based engineering site (LBES) for testing and verifying the ship’s propulsion train, $11 million is for developing options for a second shipyard and $23 million for technical baseline changes pursuant to Buy American , total ~ $119 million.
If an additional Burke added to FY2022 budget by Congress which seems near certainty it will cost only an additional $1,659.2 million for a total of $4,060.9 million, $2 billion per ship, a cost saving of $400K per ship with two ship buy.
The bottom line Constellation at $1 billion is half the cost of a Burke and that's with only one ship buy per year vs Burkes two ship buy, Constellation will also be less expensive to operate.
PS did see mention the Constellation beam only increased by 4"(if accurate) plus the additional length needed for the increase in 500 tons displacement, maybe just sitting lower in water than the FREMM and therefore expect Constellation V-line being raised on hull, where the watertight access and system penetrations allowed, Navy raised V-line height on Burke Flt III from that of the Flt IIA for same reason.
"The bottom line Constellation at $1 billion is half the cost of a Burke"
DeleteYou've made a couple of assumptions that have a high risk of not holding up:
1. Burke Flt IIA which has well documented costs (if somewhat obscured by Navy accounting games) typically ran around $1.5B-$1.8B for several years which is why I've chosen to cite them.
2. History assures us with near 100% certainty that Constellation's costs will increase. With absolute 100% certainty, the Navy's cost estimates are always significantly low. Hence, a far more likely cost is around $1.4B. Bear in mind as you look at Constellations purported costs that the Navy has taken to partial construction of ships with deferred construction after delivery and commissioning and with funding coming out of other account lines. Thus, the stated costs are artificially (fraudulently?) low. I think the Constellation is going to cost around 70-78% of a Burke.
The larger point is that the Constellation represents poor value. Even using your cost estimate of 50% for a ship that delivers 33% of the armament, it's a poor value and only gets that much worse if my cost estimates are closer to reality.
I've quoted the latest Navy FY2022 budget figures for both the Burke and Constellation. Would note Burke figure include request for additional $45.8 million in cost to complete funding to pay for cost growth on prior year DDG-51s, as yet no mention on Constellation for additional funding required for the two earlier ships, early days yet, but so far so good.
DeleteI'm more optimistic than you on the outcome as FMM shipyard is new boy on the block and have an exemplary record of delivering ships on cost and time from their Italian shipyards.
If you add the 16 deck missile launchers to the 32 MK41 VLS cells that's 50% of the armament. If the deck launchers are the BAE Adaptable Deck Launcher understand it can fire any missile the Mk41 can.
2:50
https://youtu.be/zf020DzcgT8
"If you add the 16 deck missile launchers to the 32 MK41 VLS cells that's 50% of the armament."
DeleteBe consistent. If you're going to add deck launchers then you have to include deck launchers for the Burkes which is a minimum of 8, which is what Burkes have deployed with in the past, and there's no reason it couldn't be expanded to 16. It could even be 16 NSM instead of Harpoons which are being phased out anyway.
Has Harpoon ever been mounted on a flight II and above? Pretty suure its flight I. So its 90 vs 32 VLS, 0 vs 16 SSM and organic Helo and UAV vs landing and service only when comparing first flight to first flight. 2 CIWS vs 1 mk 110 and 1 RAM. Points to Burke for torpedo tubes, 5 inch gun, and bow sonar.
DeleteSorry 8 SSM vs 16 in my comparison.
DeleteNot sure if correct but Wikipedia shows only deck launches for eight Harpoons fitted to Burke Flights I and II, not fitted to Flight IIA or III ships.
DeleteThey're bolt on launchers. There's no reason they couldn't be added to IIA ships and I would assume they would be in war.
DeleteThe deck is 1 level higher and they'd be in the way of the CIWS.
DeleteWhen is the last time we even bought Harpoons? Many years...
DeleteLooping back. If the land-based engineering site does in fact include propulsion train testing how is that going to usefully align with the construction cycle.
DeleteIIUC the LBES isn't in place yet, and will presumably take time to put in place, but construction is slated to later begin this year. Isn't there a danger that the LBES will be testing after installation?
Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't it's principle capability going to be ASW. Yes it can do other things but they are secondary capability's?
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind what I find concerning is what do the changes to the Hull and internal machinery do to the quietening (along with sea keeping)? The RN type 26 / RAN Hunter / Canadian SC (I'm a fan sorry CNO) had hours of clever people designing it for optimum quietness. (hull form, propeller type, special mounting on the power packs, 2 of the DG's mounted above waterline to reduce noise....). I would have thought changing the length, beam, power pack, propellers etc (in a relatively short time frame) may change this and new subs are only going to get quieter. However maybe the Italian and US boffins have all this covered.
As mentioned earlier, how can ASW be it's "principle" capability, when the give it AEGIS and an advanced radar, and 32 VLS and slate it to fire not one, but 2 new surface to air missile, but give it no shipborne ASW weapons, and no hull array? If it has no sonar and no shipborne ASW weapons ( yes I know it has a MH-60R) how can it be construed as primarily an ASW platform? they spent neither the money, nor gave the space to ASW.
DeleteFurther, let's look at the mission set. it's ASW mission is to " detect" , conduct search, and then " pass on targetting data for prosecution by follow on assets". does that sound like it's primary mission is ASW???
Imho the Connies will be a much more useful platform than the world beater LCS yes it has faults ie lack if bow sonar etc and extra weight length but which would ya'll sail in Lcs or The Connies my main gripes are as said Asw shortcomings and rhe real lack and need of a proper gun either a 76mm or 127mm also it will have a towed sonar which is better than nothing I guess maybe someone can help explain that system in more detail
ReplyDeleteDid I see it correctly that the St. Lawrence Seaway has a maximum draft of 8.2m/26 feet (Welland Canal) and the FREMM has a draft of 8.7M/28feet, so they have decided to take the sonar dome off? That reduces its capacity as an ASW platform. It just gets worse and worse.
ReplyDelete26.5 in the St. Lawrence, but that's how I've viewed it throughout. Optional bow sonar to accommodate the builder. I'm sure they could have still pulled off a more modest set, or designed it to be modular like was done for Sea Hunter.
ReplyDeletePossibly so, but what the Navy really needs is a top-notch ASW (and possible ASuW) platform, not an AEGIS platform with 32 VLS cells.
DeleteA dumb question why would sonar have to be in the bow could it not bein a retracting centerline position?
ReplyDeleteThe bow sonar is the ideal position, just like on the SSNs, because it is further removed from the machinery noise.
DeleteSimplistically, a hull mounted sonar is large because it is powerful. A small, helo dipping sonar, for example, has a very limited range because it is small and less powerful. So, a retractable sonar would have to be very small in comparison to a bow sonar unless one were willing to have a huge chunk of the hull bottom be moveable which would severely weaken the hull.
DeleteOther reasons for the bow position include minimizing flow turbulence and self-noise.
The Kirovs, possibly among other designs, had a permanently mounted sonar located more towards the center of the hull. I have no idea how successful it was.
FRAM destroyers had hull-mounted SQS-23 sonars more toward the center of the hull. The SQS-26 was a bow-mounted sonar on the Garcia, Bronstein, and Brooke class frigates, the Belknap, Truxtun, California, and Virginia class cruisers, and the Knox class frigates. The SQS-53 was an improvement on the SQS-26 on the Ticos and Burkes. The SQS-26 weighed 30 tons. The SQS-26 was regarded as a much better ASW sonar than the SQS-23, and results seemed to support that. The Perrys went back to the keel-mounted SQS-56, which was regarded as an inferior sonar, but having a towed array and 2 helos supposedly made them more effective ASW platforms.
DeleteI'm not sure that they Navy's concept of "needs of the Navy" actually reflect the needs of the Navy. Go back to ComNavOps's earlier post on Comparative Fleet Roles. The obvious holes in the fleet as currently configured are in the ASuW/ASW areas. The original FREMM actually did a decent job of addressing those areas. But that wasn't what the Navy did. They wanted another AEGIS platform, as numerical replacements for the Ticos. So they took the FREMM and sacrificed a bunch of other stuff to get AEGIS onboard. Now we find that it won't have the bow sonar, so its effectiveness as an ASW platform is reduced.
ReplyDeleteWe are building a less effective numerical replacement for the Ticos, so the Navy can finally get rid of them. Any idea that it is a FREMM is simply misinformation spread by the Navy to justify what they wanted to do all along. We are rapidly becoming a less capable Navy, driven by the Navy's own decisions.
I was thinking ots a replacement for the Fantastic and wonderful LCS myself but it be a replacement for the early Burkes which IMHO would be a Huge m8stake
DeleteI think Sea Hunter is the replacement for the LCSs.
DeleteSeaaa Hunter ends with that 2nd hull. 2 or 3 ghost fleet hulls will be the same type as was selected for MUSV. MUSV is 1 prototype plus 8 options. Find out what else that hull would be good at aside from unmanned sensor platform.
DeleteNavy should learn from China's 052 destroyer program:
ReplyDeleteInitially, China built two 052 destroyers. Yes, only two.
After some tests, they then built two 052B destroyers, yes, still only two.
After that, they built 6 052C destroyers which meant that they were somewhat satisfied but not 100%, for instance, 052C's dish type VLS not very good.
They only later mass produce 052D.
So, make only two Constellations, test them, summarize all sensible improvements in next model. If not certain, still, build only two, only mass produce while Navy is certain.
Doing this way can avoid mistakes made before such as in LCS.
I found the following on Page 18 of the CRS report to Congress (Report R44792) updated July 30, 2021.
ReplyDeleteA May 14, 2019, Navy information paper on expanding the cost impact of expanding the FFG-62 VLS capacity from 32 cells to 48 cells states
To grow from a 32 Cell VLS to a 48 Cell VLS necessitates an increase in the length of the ship with a small beam increase and roughly a 200-ton increase in full load displacement. This will require a resizing of the ship, readdressing stability and seakeeping analyses, and adapting ship services to accommodate the additional 16 VLS cells.
A change of this nature would unnecessarily delay detail design by causing significant disruption to ship designs. Particularly the smaller ship designs. Potential competitors have already completed their Conceptual Designs and are entering the Detail Design and Construction competition with ship designs set to accommodate 32 cells.
The cost is estimated to increase between $16M [million] and $24M [million] per ship. This includes ship impacts and additional VLS cells.36
I haven't read why the Navy is increasing the length and beam of the Constellation frigates. The Breaking Defense story doesn't say why. The comment above was mentioned in the discussion about the number of VLS cells the Constellation class should have.
Any chance the Navy is planning to equip the Constellation frigates with 48 VLS cells?
While more fire power is welcomed by many, problem is for what Constellation id designed. You can keep adding features before first one even been completed. All these sounds good in talking but huge delays and cost over run.
DeleteI have wondered about the use of the Burke as the parent design and removing or choosing different equipment to create a new frigate.
ReplyDeleteIf you used the Burke as a parent design the weapons load could be the same with 96 VLS cells, 5 inch gun, etc.
The top side could be all new cost saving design with every thing below the weather deck nearly the same as a Burke.
I would rather remove mass from a design which increases the safety margin than redesign a ship to increase displacement because of mass growth eating into the safety margin.
A new power train similar to the Constellation design might be an upgrade to the parent Burke design that could be trialed on the Frigate version before adoption on future Burkes. I don't know if you can take a billion off the price of a Burke and make it comparable to the Constellation but at 96 VLS cells vs 32 VLS cells it is really not an apples to apples comparison.
"I would rather remove mass from a design"
DeleteThat's an easy generic statement to make. However, given that there's nothing on the Burke that it is not necessary - other than crew comforts - what would you actually remove?
"There is nothing on the Burke that is not necessary" that is true if you want a ship that is a Burke equal. Constellation is not a Burke equivalent.(slower, smaller radar,less weapon load, smaller gun, inferior sonar)
DeleteQuite a lot could be removed depending on how you wanted the ship to perform. Two of the four gas turbines could be removed(replace the LM2500 turbines with LM2500+G4 turbines to make up for the reduction in power). Top speed would still be reduced since you would only have 95,000 shp rather than 105,000 shp.
The whole topside of the ship, replaced with a redesigned topside with a Thales integrated mast(the model of I-Mast would be based on the Conops). The hanger could be removed.
Smaller (less powerful) radars need less cooling. HVAC may be able to be downsized with a smaller radar. Flight III has five 300 ton cooling plants while flight II has five 200 ton cooling plants. Three of the new cooling plants are nearly equal to 5 of the old plants. Two plants could be removed if cooling loads were reduced.
Those are the main areas that could be changed with minimal changes to the weapons load.
What would be the point of a "frigate" with 96 VLS and a 'smaller (less powerful) radar'? The key to Aegis is the radar system and control software that enables the use of lots of Standard missiles and hence lots of VLS cells. Without the radar (and software, presumably) you wouldn't need the Standards and you'd just have a lot of unneeded VLS cells. If all you need is ESSM, around 8 cells (32 missiles) is adequate for a frigate.
DeleteAlso, we've examined the breakdown of the Burke construction costs and noted that the bulk of the cost is the hull, itself, which means that a 'frigate' Burke would cost nearly as much as a regular Burke.
This gets back to CONOPS. If you need a 'frigate' with 96 VLS then just build a Burke. If not, build a small frigate and actually save some significant money.
I don't get this fascination so many people seem to have with trying to jam as many weapons and functions on a frigate as possible. In fact, I did a post on it!
"Build a small frigate and actually save some money" If only they would build small inexpensive ships, I have not seen any willingness to do so.
Delete"I don't get this fascination so many people seem to have with trying to jam as many weapons and functions on a frigate as possible." Then call it a destroyer escort or light destroyer.
You have also done a post on the decline in firepower documenting the decrease in VLS cells. This design is a way to have nearly the same offensive firepower as flight II Burkes at less cost.
"This design is a way to have nearly the same offensive firepower as flight II Burkes at less cost."
DeleteNo, not really. To have nearly the same firepower would require adding back in a full Aegis suite with SPY/AMDR radar arrays and Aegis combat software system along with all the cooling, electrical, and other utilities required to operate the radars and the system. At that point, you're nearly back to a full Burke.
I am reminded of the early torpedo destroyers program of the late 1800s. If I recall correctly from my readings, the first attempt to build an European design with small changes became a disaster since many of the companies were inexperienced or never attempt a ship of that size. They followed strictly the Navy design as they believed that would leave them off the hook. The Navy had to lower their standards to accept only a few of them but regardless, was not a successful project.
ReplyDeleteI hope the Navy doesn't follow this same footpath as we already paid the price for that lesson in the past.