Wednesday, March 19, 2025

USS Constellation Update

The Navy’s new frigate, the USS Constellation, is now expected to deliver 3 years late, or more (spoiler alert!  It will be more!).  What’s going wrong?  Let’s get an update.
 
 
Design
 
The Constellation contract was awarded in April 2020 which means the design work began more than 5 years ago and is still nowhere near complete.  That’s astounding.  Over 5 years to generate a design and it still isn’t complete.
 
… the U.S. Navy had to significantly modify the design to meet U.S. survivability and growth margin standards.
 
Speaking at the Naval Institute’s Defense Forum Washington event, Fincantieri Marinette Marine CEO Mark Vandroff said the Navy and the shipyard underestimated the complexity of altering the design.[2]

The entire point of the so-called parent design approach was exactly to avoid significant design changes and yet the Navy ignored that philosophy and instituted extensive changes.
 
Concurrency and Schedule
 
As we’ve seen with every acquisition program in recent years, concurrency (simultaneous design and construction) always causes cost and schedule havoc.  Despite this repeated, soul-deep lesson, the Navy opted for concurrency, yet again, beginning construction with only partial design plans.  Predictably (well … predictable by everyone except the Navy), this has caused schedule problems among other issues, with the ship now scheduled to deliver more than three years late.
 
The Navy’s decision to commence construction before completing the design has led to significant schedule slippages.[1]

Cost
 
As always, the Navy’s cost estimates have proven fraudulently underestimated.
 
Initially, the estimated cost for the first ship was around $1.28 billion, with subsequent ships expected to cost approximately $1.05 billion each. However, these estimates have proven to be overly optimistic. The actual costs have increased significantly, with some estimates suggesting that the final cost per ship could be as high as $1.6 billion. This 40% increase in costs has raised concerns about the program’s affordability and sustainability.[1]

Actually, those costs aren’t even true.  The Congressional Research Service Feb 2021 report notes,
 
The Navy’s FY2021 budget submission estimated that subsequent ships in the class will cost roughly $940 million each in then-year dollars.[emphasis added][2]

Weight
 
The weight of the ships has increased by over 10% from the initial estimates. This weight growth is attributed to design decisions and the challenges of adapting a foreign design to meet U.S. Navy requirements.[1]

Unfortunately, the Navy is now looking at reducing or eliminating other capabilities in order to compensate for the weight increase.  It is almost certain that the range and speed requirements will be downgraded among other detrimental changes.
 
Workforce
 
The shipyard is reportedly a “few hundred” workers short, which has contributed to delays in the construction schedule.[1]

Come on, now.  It’s not as if the builder didn’t know how many workers they had when the bid the project.  If they’re short of workers now, they certainly knew they were short of workers when they bid.  This is, again, fraud on the part of the builder and willful complicity on the part of the Navy who also knew the builder’s workforce compared to the project requirements.
 
Risks
 
The Navy has yet to demonstrate the full capabilities of the propulsion and machinery control systems … [1]
 
The Navy is considering additional land-based testing to mitigate these risks and ensure the reliability of the systems before the ships are deployed.[1]

When have we ever seen ‘risks’ not become problems?  The point of land based testing is to find problems and solutions before beginning construction.
 
Second Yard
 
Given the inability of Fincantieri to meet the contracted schedule, the Navy has begun looking at a second source shipyard.  Possibilities include:
 
… specifically mentioned Austal USA, Bollinger, HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works as potential second yards.[2]

 
Conclusion
 
The Navy’s absolute refusal to design and build a ship the proper way (complete the design and then begin construction) is, after so many demonstrated failures using this approach, a near criminal act of fraud and negligence perpetrated against the American taxpayer.
 
As we all knew, with 100% certainty, concurrency has, once again, caused schedule slippage and cost overruns.
 
The Constellation class is now in the process of having its requirements downgraded to compensate for weight increases.  So much for the supposed benefits of a parent design.  The Navy never had any intention of building the parent design.  That was just a ploy to evade additional Congressional oversight.
 
It bears noting that the yard’s manpower shortages are not exactly a new problem that suddenly reared its head.  Both the yard and the Navy knew they couldn’t build the ship in the required time frame with the workforce they had.  Essentially, the yard and the Navy conspired to hide the inability to meet the contract.
 
Worse than all the listed problems is the fact that even if there were no problems, it would only produce an obsolete design unsuited for modern combat.
 
There is no other way to describe this program than as a massive fraud and failure. 
 
 
 
____________________________

[1]1945 website, “The U.S. Navy’s New Constellation-Class Frigate Is In Big Trouble”, Isaac Seitz, 25-Feb-2025,
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/02/the-u-s-navys-new-constellation-class-frigate-is-in-big-trouble/
 
[2]USNI News website, “Navy: Constellation Frigate Design Will be Ready in May, Second Yard Could Come in FY 2027”, Mallory Shelbourne & Sam LaGrone, 13-Dec-2024,
https://news.usni.org/2024/12/13/navy-constellation-frigate-design-will-be-ready-in-may-second-yard-could-come-in-fy-2027

57 comments:

  1. One must conclude these actions are intentional as they are profitable to contractors who pay our retiring Admirals a tidy sum for their help.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe the capabilities that they will drop will be the ASW role. Then it can be a dedicated AAW ship and ASW can be done by a purpose built ship?

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Possible but I doubt it. Remember, the Navy is all about multi-function platforms so I don't see them dropping an entire function. They are far more likely to downgrade speed, endurance, range, weight margins, stability margins, etc. This is exactly what they did with both LCS classes when they realized that neither could meet their design/contract parameters.

      Your solution would be the preferred approach although it should have been done at the 'back of the napkin' design stage instead of waiting until they were solidly in the failure phase. Unfortunately, I don't see the Navy doing this.

      What do you think?

      Delete
    2. They already don't have a sonar dome because of water depth to get out to the ocean. Plus the ship is about twice as big as it should be to be an ASW ship. Good idea. Maybe then add a couple more RAM or CIWS mounts instead (or am I adding bells and whistles creep to the ship?)

      Delete
    3. "Then it can be a dedicated AAW ship..."
      Because the Navy doesn't have enough of those, lol...

      Delete
    4. At this point, we should outsource the construction of our Frigates to the South Koreans and Japanese. They build frigates much faster than the US Navy and we should have serious discussion with South Korea and Japan on getting the Daegu-class frigate, Chungnam-class frigate Or Japan's Mogami-class frigate. On top of that
      DOGE needs to audit NAVSEA

      Delete
    5. "Then it can be a dedicated AAW ship . . ."

      Thirty-two VLS cells does not make a dedicated AAW platform.

      Delete
    6. 3 face EASR, CEC, current Aegis baseline, 26 SM-2, 24 ESSM, 21 RAM and a Mk 110 with actual fire control, SEWIP, and NULKA isn't playing second fiddle to any other second rate warship in the world.

      Delete
    7. "What do you think?"

      I am a firm believer in the 'Navy-Matters' philosophy of optimized single purpose ship design.

      CNO has a previous post here in which he talks about what a purpose-built AAW platform would look like. One of the key takeaways is how much ship size could be reduced by not including the ASW features and the aviation facilities.

      Here is the post if anyone would like to look at it.
      https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/search/label/Atlanta%20Class

      I would then have the ASW functions performed by a team of ships.

      The primary ship would be the frigate love child of a Spruance and an Oliver Hazard Perry.
      Besides the bow-mounted sonar/VDS/Towed Array it would carry two to three ASW helicopters.

      This ship would be teamed with a pair of purpose built ASW destroyers, which would be built on a Gearing class hull.
      These would still sport a bow sonar, VDS, and towed array but would be smaller and quicker (and less expensive).

      These three ships would make up an ASW team.
      Possible contacts would be prosecuted by the team of ships with ASW helicopter support provided by the frigate.

      In a high missile threat environment, a Burke could be attached to help with AAW protection for the team, (which may be operating at some distance from the other ships in the battle group). The Burke could also contribute some clumsy ASW assistance to the team as well.

      I would like to see the roles of AAW and ASW split like that to optimize ship design and training for the two seperate jobs.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    8. "frigate love child"

      Hey! This isn't that kind of website!

      "carry two to three ASW helicopters."

      That would be very close to the Hayler DDH concept.

      "Burke could also contribute some clumsy ASW assistance"

      Careful not to give away our operating procedures! We've worked decades to perfect those!

      Delete
    9. "That would be very close to the Hayler DDH concept."

      Well considering that with helos, "one is none", and two is barely better- a proper ASW ship should have three at least. Or, perhaps, a larger, team-leading ship with 8+ helos, working with multiple ASW frigates, is the way to go(??) I could envision a ship that looks more like an LPD (LPH??) than a destroyer being an "ASW Commander", much like the Ticos are for AAW.
      Probably too much to hope for- multiple successful ship designs, since we haven't seen a single one in, how many decades???

      Delete
    10. "Hey! This isn't that kind of website!"

      It was worthless without pictures anyway. ;)

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    11. "That would be very close to the Hayler DDH concept."

      I took a look at that idea after you posted about it. It's pretty interesting.

      What I was looking for was a blending of the quality of the Spruance in a slightly bigger ship than a Perry.

      The Spruance looks to be a pretty good ship, but it's pretty big too. I would want to build a lot of these so size matters.

      But even at its size, the Spruance seems to have good handling characteristics. Its turning radius is similar to the long, narrow Gearing (although I'm sure that with LM2500 engines the Gearing would leap forward into a sprint).

      "...perhaps, a larger, team-leading ship with 8+ helos, working with multiple ASW frigates..."

      I've thought about that idea.
      My concern would be that it puts all of your helicopter eggs in one basket.

      That could be a problem if you have farflung ASW teams spread out in a large area around a battle group.

      It would also be a problem if you lost the helicopter carrier due to mechanical problems or enemy action.

      And it might be a little slow to keep up with the carrier battle groups.

      But if you needed ASW in a given area, like a strait or the entrance to the Panama or Suez canals or a harbor, it might work really well supporting ASW ships.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
  3. I'll say this DOGE needs to audit the US Navy's frigate program

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's really impressive to screw up procurement so badly it's looking like it might be more expensive than any of the 3 Type 26 variants, which had their procurement screwed up by 3 different governments, and the UK MOD!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is there something in modern US culture that compels people to be flagrantly over-optimistic at all times? I'm a Brit who works for an American-owned company, and the our Americans feel compelled to show a front of optimism at all times. However, it isn't too hard to learn to spot the gradations between "actually happy" and "claiming they are happy, but not really." Surely Americans can do the same? Or are they afraid of shoot-the-messenger responses to bad news?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scrap the entire program. Go with the patrol frigate 4923 proposal based on the Legend class NSC. Half the cost, better armament options and already established shipbuilding yard in country. We need an ASW frigate asap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I understand it, the Legend class is NOT built to Navy combat and survivability standards. My vague understanding (I may be wrong) is that the ship is not sized for a SH-60 type helo.

      Making the required modifications would skyrocket the costs, as happened with the Constellation parent design.

      A lot of people are enamored with the Legend class as a Navy option but when you start digging into the details the allure quickly fades.

      Delete
    2. COMNAV: . The NSC can accommodate
      two H-65s, or one H-65 or H-60 and two vertically launched
      unmanned aerial vehicles, or other combinations. (as per this: https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/documents/CG_Cutters-Boats-Aircraft_2015-2016_edition.pdf?ver=2018-06-14-092150-230

      Delete
    3. "The NSC can accommodate"

      Thanks for the update and link.

      Delete
  7. ""the U.S. Navy had to significantly modify the design to meet U.S. survivability and growth margin standards."

    Fincantieri modified their design post tank testing at Carderock NSWC and added 300 tons of steel to meet U.S. survivability and growth margin standards pre their bid and was accepted by the Navy. To be noted Navy only specified 5% growth margin, not 10%, which has come back to haunt them as now 10% overweight.

    "Speaking at the Naval Institute’s Defense Forum Washington event, Fincantieri Marinette Marine CEO Mark Vandroff said the Navy and the shipyard underestimated the complexity of altering the design.[2]"

    When the original bid was submitted by Fincantieri and accepted by the Navy FFG(X) / Constellation had 85% commonality with the parent Italian FREMM design, now due to continuous tinkering with the design and classified by the GAO report as an unstable design regime commonality now reported to have dropped to less than 15%, no wonder not one of build blocks ( 31 "Grand Modules") , had the detail design been completed when the GAO reported May 2024 even though production had been authorized back in August 2022 and as a result construction only 3.6 percent of the lead ship completed as compared to the 35.5 percent scheduled. Current state of the detail design of the 31 Grand Modules has not been revealed by the Navy. GAO makes a comment that a sound business case for off-ramping capabilities that present a risk to schedule.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another great Mark Felton report about the decaying UK military.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Z0Y-mFMBk

    ReplyDelete
  9. Off topic but this has been annonced : The new F47 lower cost NGAD, which will be produced by Boeing. Superlatives are being mentioned, even before the aircraft has been tested ! Will this new jet end up with the same problems as the F35 ? Will there be a Navy variant ?. I hope our military has learned some things about the F35 rollout etc.
    PB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " I hope our military has learned some things about the F35 rollout etc."

      I'm willing to bet all your worldly possessions that the military has learned nothing and will repeat all the same mistakes and, likely, create a few new ones.

      What is my overarching design theme? That's right, simplicity! So what is the very first design requirement for this F-47? It's to control dozens of unmanned companion aircraft in addition to whatever other roles it has. We tried to write a basic inventory control software program (ALIS) for the F-35 and failed utterly. So, naturally, we're adding even more software complexity to the next aircraft! Lesson not learned.

      Delete
    2. Think of the law of fives.

      This aircraft is already five years behind the Euro Tempest. And the Chinese J-36 and J-XX. It will come in at five times the overall contract price (regardless how they wiggle the individual price around), and it will be five years late in fleet delivery.

      How freaking arrogant do you have to be to put your name on a fighter that has the potential to be even worse than the F-35 procurement?

      And as I have no idea how the Russians are really doing, I didn't include them. But in the real world, it is considered that the Chinese, Russians and perhaps the Europeans are way ahead of the US in hypersonics. Trump said it will do "2".

      Wow. Really?

      Delete
  10. This guy provides a good report on current navy combat in the Red Sea.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKjWfv6hsNI

    ReplyDelete
  11. I highly commend you watch this. It is of course not the definitive view of combat in the Red Sea, and there are some tech glitches, but the overall perspective is pretty good from a guy who knows what he is talking about. It would be wise to prepare for war, at least on some unpredictable scale. It seems that the US has sucked some of the Middle East into a violent response, and that is likely to be forthcoming.

    https://www.youtube.com/live/tT4nBVsZP4I?si=knrb5vhg95pp48u-

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well if we decide to start a war with Iran, I hope the Navy brass remember to get the Harry Truman and CSG-8 out of harm’s way first. Magazine depth must be getting seriously depleted by now, so you’d wanna stay as far away from the Houthis as you can.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Constellation's design evolved to the point of becoming as large as a Spruance class destroyer. The money and irreplaceable time spent on Constellation could've paid for at least one new Spruance class hull, which would've been built by now. No matter how much money we've thrown at bespoke designs (Zumwalt, LCS, Constellation), none have ever achieved their program objectives. They're tinker toys for engineers and procurement officers to play with that deliver nothing of value to the Navy.

    We've spent at least $52B on design and construction, between those three programs. That would've paid for 26 new build Spruance class hulls, at $2B per hull.

    kbd512

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " new build Spruance class hulls"

      Why would you want new Spruance hulls? They would be obsolete, just like Burkes are now obsolete and for many of the same reasons. We need a new design - one OPTIMIZED for the modern naval battlefield not a leftover from the '70's and '80's.

      Delete
    2. CNO,

      Using our 50 year old destroyer hull design means no time or money is wasted reinventing something that already works. Our Navy had decades to tinker with new hull designs and concepts. We don't have anything to show for all the time and money spent on those projects. The Zumwalts failed to replace the Ticonderogas and Burkes. The pair of LCS designs failed to replace the Perry class and mine hunters. Constellation is now years behind schedule and over-budget, another purported Perry class replacement that appears more akin to a poorly-armed Spruance class substitute than a true frigate. If the ship that Constellation is shaping up to be is about the same size and displacement as a Spruance, and it already is, then build a Spruance and be done with it. The end goal is supposed to be acquisition of warships, not workfare tedium to keep engineers and procurement officers employed.

      When an engineering problem has been adequately solved, you move on to solving the next problem. Revisiting boilerplate problems over and over again is how we wound up with bizarre, non-working, egregiously expensive solutions to problems that don't exist. I can't think of a fleet problem that any of those three programs actually solved.

      kbd512

      Delete
    3. "Using our 50 year old destroyer hull design means no time or money is wasted reinventing something that already works."

      I understand your frustration but you're missing the most important point. You're correct that the Spruance was a very successful design ... decades ago. It would not be a successful design today. It lacks multi-spectral stealth, armor, extensive EW, mini-UAV capability (for organic ISR), etc. Without realizing it (I suspect), you're doing the exact same thing the Navy is when they cling to the Burke for all future designs because they can't produce a successful, new design. This relegates us to obsolete designs that will be failures on the modern battlefield.

      "Navy had decades to tinker with new hull designs"

      And they succeeded! The Burke demonstrated a viable, successful, stealth hull (from main deck down) that was slanted to reduce radar signature. In contrast, the Spruance hull was a slab-sided, radar beacon.

      Similarly, the Spruance superstructure is a slab-sided, glowing, radar return screaming, "here I am!". The Spruance design has no place on the modern battlefield. Look to the Visby for inspiration on what a modern warship should look like, not the Spruance.

      "If the ship that Constellation is shaping up to be is about the same size and displacement as a Spruance, and it already is, then build a Spruance and be done with it."

      The Constellation SHOULDN'T be the size of a Spruance. The Constellation is an abomination of misguided multi-function design. A frigate size should be on the order of a WWII Fletcher and with a very focused weapons fit, as I've demonstrated in many posts. Don't give into a mistake of a design; push for a new, proper design!

      I love the Spruance but its time has passed. We need a frigate sized Visby with all the additional enhancements I've described in various posts.

      "The end goal is supposed to be acquisition of warships"

      No. At the risk of being pedantic, the goal is not warships. If it were, we could build Spruances or combat canoes - just hulls in the water. Instead, the goal is COMAT-EFFECTIVE warships. There's no point building ships that won't be effective and survivable in combat. Unfortunately, that's what we're doing now. We're building Burke Flt 29, or whatever iteration we're on, that can't accommodate the required radar size, isn't stealthy, lacks EW, can't operate UAVs, etc.

      Delete
    4. I think besides the obvious "aim weapons here signature, " I do not believe the Spru-cans could absorb an attack such as the one befell the USS Cole. I would think survivability would be more of a desired characteristic of a surface combatant in today's threat environment. Wouldn't that be part of a ship's Combat Effectiveness? How much damage can a warship can absorb and still be in the fight? I agree, the Burke's have proven themselves but let's face it, we have reached the "trying to cram 10 lbs of fecal matter into a 5 lb bag" stage, the Fletcher-class proved we could design and building a small, but stout surface combatant.

      (disclaimer: I was not a surface dude, I was an Airdale so my thoughts/opinions may not hold water.)

      Delete
    5. "I do not believe the Spru-cans could absorb an attack such as the one befell the USS Cole."

      What makes you say that? I'm not arguing, just genuinely curious what characteristics of the Cole/Burke you feel allowed it to survive where a Spruance wouldn't have?

      The reason I'm asking is because, in general terms, ship's survivability has gotten worse, not better. Plating is thinner, buoyancy reserves have gotten smaller, weight margins are reduced or non-existent, stability has decreased, crew size (damage control) has gotten smaller, cross sectional wetted area is negative with submergence, etc. The Navy has eliminated actual survivability standards and replaced them with a vague, generic, feel-good matrix of characteristics that have little to do with actual survivability.

      What's your thought process on this?

      Delete
    6. The survivability assertion that I made was based on the construction materials used. For the Burke: Except for the two aluminum funnels, the entire ship is made from steel, with vital areas protected by two layers of steel and 70t of Kevlar armor. (https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/?cf-view)

      The Spruance's had steel hulls with an aluminum superstructure that had kevlar armor placed over sensitive areas. (My reasoning is a bit thin on this point). I based my reasoning on the construction of both classes, specifically the differences in construction of their respective superstructures.

      Delete
  14. I get that people are frustrated with delays and cost growth on the Constellation-class frigates, but calling the entire program a fraud or failure seems like a big overreach.
    First off, modifying the original European design was always going to be necessary. U.S. Navy ships have stricter requirements for survivability, weapons systems, and power margins. Pretending we could just take a foreign frigate off the shelf and hit “print” was never realistic. The fact that the Navy made changes isn’t a failure, it’s adapting the ship to the world it’s actually going to operate in.
    And yeah, concurrency has burned us before. But let’s not pretend the Navy is doing things exactly the same way. This time, they’ve front-loaded more land-based testing and digital modeling to work out the bugs. It’s still risky, but it’s not as reckless as it’s being made out to be.
    As for the cost increases, those numbers are being tossed around without much context. The Navy’s latest estimates include the weapon systems, sensors, and inflationary adjustments. Of course it's going to be more expensive than an early conceptual number. That doesn’t mean it’s fraud. It means things evolved, just like they do in every other major shipbuilding program.
    And the workforce shortage? That’s not some conspiracy. Every yard in the country is scrambling to hire. Fincantieri has been expanding and training, but this stuff takes time. The shortage isn’t ideal, but it’s hardly unique or unexpected given today’s labor market.
    Honestly, I think the Constellation is exactly the kind of ship the Navy needs, something between a destroyer and a corvette, capable of operating in contested areas without putting a $2 billion platform at risk. Is it perfect? No. But to call it obsolete or a scam before the first one even hits the water feels a lot more like outrage than analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your apologist approach to the program is EXACTLY why the Navy never improves. No matter how bad something is, it could be worse so it's not really that bad. Let me put frame your argument slightly differently ...

      Did we hoodwink Congress and the public with that line about the parent design eliminating the need for changes and risk? Well, yes, we did but that's not really that big a deal.

      Did we underestimate the cost by 40% to, perhaps, 100% by the time it's all said and done? Yes, but we underestimate everything so it isn't that big a deal.

      Did we engage in concurrency yet again despite every previous concurrent project being a failure? Yes, but we did it to a slightly lesser degree so that's a good thing!

      Did we violate every precept of good program management and ship construction according to GAO? Yes, but we always do so what's the big deal?

      Did we publicly state we had 85% commonality with the parent design at the start of the program and now it's down to 15% and dropping? Yes, and some might see that as fraud but we knew all along we were going to do that so it's no big deal.

      Did Congress tell us to do land testing PRIOR to construction and we declined to do it? Yes, but who listens to Congress?

      Knowing we had a workforce shortage did we fail to adjust our cost and schedule accordingly? Yes, but every shipyard has a shortage so it's no big deal.

      To repeat, your view is EXACTLY why we can't get the Navy to learn any lessons and improve. Thank you for illustrating that.

      One sentence of yours perfectly sums up the incredible hypocrisy of your view: " Pretending we could just take a foreign frigate off the shelf and hit “print” was never realistic." And yet that's EXACTLY how the Navy sold the program to Congress and the public (I refer you, again, to the Navy claiming 85% commonality and now down to 15%). That's the very definition of fraud. Pretty much a classic example of bait-and-switch.

      As far as being obsolete, it most certainly is! The ship is based on a two decades old design (a lifetime in naval design!) which, by modern standards and modern naval battlefield requirements, lacks radar and multi-spectral stealth, armor, EW, weight margins, stability margins, UAV capacity, sufficient close in weapons, anti-drone weapons, etc.

      Without a doubt, the program is fraudulent and is producing an obsolete design. I'll ignore your contention that the ship is what the Navy needs. It's not, as I've thoroughly documented in these pages but we'll let that slide, for the moment.

      If you are defending this program, you're defending a LOT of bad practices, fraud, poor design, and poor program management. All I can say is, wow!

      Delete
    2. You love to throw around words like “fraud,” but the only thing fraudulent here is pretending complex shipbuilding can be reduced to hindsight-fueled hot takes.

      You mock my view as "apologism," but I’m not defending poor performance—I'm challenging the simplistic idea that every delay or cost increase is a conspiracy. That’s not oversight; it’s cynicism pretending to be wisdom.

      Yes, the Navy emphasized “parent design” to reduce risk. And guess what? That’s still true. Starting with a mature design gave the program a head start. Needing to adapt it to U.S. survivability, power, and electronic warfare standards doesn't mean the Navy lied, it means this isn’t Italy. If you truly believe a combat-ready U.S. warship could ever be built with 85% foreign commonality, you’re not paying attention.

      Concurrency? It’s not some forbidden word. It’s a tool. Misused, it burns you. Used well, with digital design and land-based testing (which is happening, by the way), it gets ships to the fleet faster. Pretending concurrency alone equals failure is like blaming a hammer for smashing your thumb.

      Cost growth? Let’s talk about inflation, material shortages, and system integration, not some fantasy that $1.05B would lock in place in a dynamic defense economy. GAO reports cost overruns on nearly every program, but this program’s current range is still well within the norm.

      You accuse the Navy of lying to Congress about commonality, but conveniently ignore that Congress saw and approved every step, including the modifications. If this is a conspiracy, it's the worst-kept one in Washington.

      You call the Constellation “obsolete” because it doesn’t look like a Visby or carry your fantasy loadout. That’s a fun thought exercise, but operationally useless. The Navy needs ships that can escort, screen, and operate with real-world logistics and combat systems, now. Not sci-fi fleets sketched out in comment sections.

      Bottom line: tearing things down is easy. Building things, especially warships, is hard. If your standard is perfection, you'll never field anything. If your measure is “less than ideal equals fraud,” then you’re not advocating reform, you’re just feeding outrage.

      Delete
    3. Your comment went to the spam folder which is why it didn't appear right away and, I assume, why you posted it again. This is a persistent, though not frequent, problem for which I have no solution or control (the downside of using a free blog engine). I check the spam folder frequently and immediately transfer valid comments to the publish folder. If you don't see a comment appear right away, this is probably what's happened. Be patient and it will appear shortly. You can also re-post and I'll just delete the duplicate. That's fine. Sorry. I wish there was something I could do about it. So far, it's just a fairly minor annoyance.

      Delete
    4. I'll leave you with the last word on this because your view so perfectly illustrates the Navy's attitude. It's educational for readers and they can decide for themselves which of our two views is correct. Thanks for offering your thoughts.

      Delete
    5. I have to disagree- the Connie is seemingly already a disaster. Its maybe half a Burke, for 2/3(if we're lucky) the price. We already have Burkes, and theres what, 18 more coming??
      We need $1B modern, non-multipurpose ships, and a lot of them, not another debacle that'll maybe give us a first deployable unit in 2030. Fraud is a strong word, but they DID sell the Connie on the 85% commonality, and now that's dropped so far as to be ridiculous- we don't even have a full set of plans yet. We shouldve never committed to it, until we had all the plans done, and then looked at commonality, cost etc. And then likely scrapped the idea and started fresh. We only need to look at the Ticonderoga "modernization" program to see that the Navy has no problem with deceiving Congress to get what they want. So sure, maybe incompetence is the explanation instead of fraud, but either way, I see this frigate as a wasted opportunity to build a proper warship, and end the string of failures/mistakes we've had...

      Delete
    6. Those who keep pushing the 85 percent commanality need to take the time to find that number mentioned anywhere before the award and provide the source. I’ll even take after the award and prior to 2024.

      Delete
    7. It's not the exact number that's the point !!!(ive seen it elsewhere multiple times, likely GAO, but not going to hunt) The undeniable fact is that the Navy pitched using an already-in-production platform, somthing that could be slightly adjusted, and speedily put onto the water. Now, its so vastly changed, itd never be confused for a FREMM on the horizon, never mind internally. So exact numbers dont matter, its the lie about true intent, and/or results that matter. Even if it wasnt 85%... what if it was 50%?? The drop to 15 would STILL indicate that somthings off the rails. If you want to defend the Connie, fine, but...the "exact number/ source" gotcha question doesnt make the sad facts about this mess any more disputable...

      Delete
    8. The ship looks almost exactly like it did with dimensions and weights as the day the contract was awarded. The DoD, the President, or Congress could have done their dilegnce to call BS. (Or any of us for that matter).

      Delete
    9. "call BS. (Or any of us for that matter"

      You may recall that I was posting criticisms as early as the start of 2023, a year or so before the ship was laid down. Prior to that, there simply wasn't enough public information to know how the program was going.

      You'll also recall that in 2021/22 I was criticizing the conceptual design in posts.

      You can see all the posts by searching the 'Constellation' tag in the keywords list.

      The Navy unabashedly sold the program to Congress and the public as a minimal modification effort thanks to the parent requirement. GAO, DOT&E, CRS and others all documented this throughout the years in their reports.
      Whether they managed to slip the changes into the contract or not doesn't alter the fraudulent nature of the Navy's scheme.

      "Congress could have done their dilegnce "

      Absolutely. Congress is complicit in this fraud. While the public may not have had access to much information, early on, Congress certainly did. Again, that doesn't alter the Navy's fraud.

      Delete
    10. "It's not the exact number that's the point "

      85% IS the exact number that's been repeatedly cited. Someone trying to excuse the fraud by debating when the number first appeared in public is just an attempt at lawyering and obfuscation. I have neither the time nor the interest in producing a citation for some other commenter who's too lazy to do their own research. GAO, DOT&E, CRS, and numerous on-line articles have all cited it.

      Delete
    11. Its an attempt to point out fool us once shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us. Quit using their false narrative and focus on how to make it better. If as much of this ship is open to public debate as has been, we should have a public forum to snipe at it before the funds get allocated. Can be invite only. Invite the talking heads in the naval blogosphere. Between them and us filtering them up some data, we can embarrass people into change up front if they didn't do their diligence as as sworn public servant.

      Delete
  15. I am an avid reader of your posts. I respect your opinions, and appreciate you providing an open space for different viewpoints.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I’m with Glenn!

    ReplyDelete
  17. F-47 is on the same path.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Agree with ComNavOps about a Visby type ship being what we need. Just reading that the Swedish Navy is building an enlarged Visby, called the Lulea class. From the few pictures and info available, it looks to be an enlarged Visby, around 400 ft. LOA. That should give it a useful range compared to 2500 mi. of the Visby. Babbock in UK is building the hulls which will then be finished outfitting in Sweden in order to get the ships in service sooner. Might be something that congress or the Navy should look at.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just wanted to reiterate that I'm not advocating we build a Swedish design, but a new US design akin to what they came up with. looking back on the DE's from WW2, they were built in modules all over the US and shipped to the shipyards to be assembled. Why could we not do this now? We could utilize all the manufacturing we have that is not close to shipyards, and possibly use smaller yards for assembly as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Show me a mudular built, composite ship. Our Visby will be steel and aluminum, simple, and cheaper. I keep looking at the 4 engine Damen Yacht Support ships.

      Delete
  20. When we fire some Admirals/SESs/PMs then we will get ships designed before they are built. Otherwise it will remain business as usual.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.