We’ll probably never know the real reason why the Navy
decided to terminate the Constellation program but one of the factors certainly
had to be the glacially slow pace of construction progress.
Constellation was laid down 12-Apr-2024 although, as with
most modern ships, construction of subassemblies had already begun. Now, Nov-2025, 19+ months later, the ship is
reportedly 12% complete.[1] That’s 12%
in 19+ months. That’s an average of 0.6%
construction progress per month. At that
rate, it would require 167 months (13.9 years!) to complete the construction
and even then, that would only be the basic hull. Fitting out would require many more months.
Fourteen years to partially build a frigate?
If you were SecNav, would you have continued this program?
 |
| Constellation Under Construction? |
https://news.usni.org/2025/11/25/navy-cancels-constellation-class-frigate-program-considering-new-small-surface-combatants
Not sure the point in gauging construction progress without a completed design. We also know they were reconfiguring the yard while finishing the last LCSs. The Synchrolift was to be complete in November 2023. Not sure when it was completed but we have 2 sources making it clear it was still not done by the beginning of February 2024. Now that the lift is complete and LCS are out of the yard, I am interested to see how many of the Saudi ships they can deliver in 2026. Original date for delivery of the final of those ships was to be the summer of next year. No sense in rushing the FFG until those are out of the way. At least assuming a BAU set of priorities.
ReplyDeleteYou almost seem to be defending the glacially slow progress of the Constellation prior to cancellation but I'm not sure. Tell me if I'm misinterpreting you.
ReplyDelete"Not sure the point in gauging construction progress without a completed design."
I'm not sure the point in STARTING construction without a design and yet that's exactly what we did.
If you're trying to excuse the slow progress due to yard equipment issues then the yard should never have been given a contract until they were fully capable.
"No sense in rushing the FFG"
The Navy has publicly stated that the Chinese will invade Taiwan within in the next few years (you can believe that or not but it's what they've claimed). The entire LCS and Zumwalt classes have been abject failures. You could not have more reasons to rush the FFG!
Not defending, but if we fail to accurately understand what's happening we will just flub it up a new way. If we see 4 Saudi ships launch in 2026 I think it might make the case that the building is less the problem than all of the other known problems. My bet is we see more holiday gotchas from SecNav no one is going to like initially. He wants faster. The example we have is LSM. Continue an existing FMS program to build an existing design and buy the data package for a follow on ship in the same role. In this case that would be a Saudi MMSC followed by the Taiwan light frigate using the Gibbs & Cox design which is basically a baby Connie.
Delete"
DeleteThe Navy has publicly stated that the Chinese will invade Taiwan within in the next few years (you can believe that or not but it's what they've claimed). The entire LCS and Zumwalt classes have been abject failures."
The Navy is going to find out the hard way that no matter what they think the 'Burkes themselves are attrition units in the face of a full naval fight.
Yep, $2.5B attrition units.
DeletePerhaps it's on the archives and I missed it... but is there an explanation of the different kinds of contracts the Navy writes?? There seem to be so many, and yet, we seemingly always end up over upset and late on deliveries. I understand the Navys incessant change orders throw a wrench in the works... but isn't there a way to write contracts that could guarantee on time and on budget deliveries? Perhaps that's only possible with complete blueprints ahead of construction and no changes after it starts?? I see "incentive" in the types of contracts... and have no problem with giving an "early/under budget bonus but...
ReplyDeleteContracts have been mentioned many times but I've never done a post on them. It doesn't matter what type of contract; one way or another, there are always provisions for overruns and schedule slippages. Yes, asking a company to bid on a project that lacks a finalized design is insane and yet we do it routinely.
DeleteIf you think that the LCS and FFG programs are failures, wait until you see the DDG(X) program around 2026-2030's... (it will be the tomb of the US Navy)
ReplyDeleteThe Navy is fortunate the American public is largely unaware of the amount of money wasted the last 20 years on ships that are useless. My co-workers are of the mind that every ship in the US Fleet carries nuclear weapons. Put the idea in the head of Elon Musk to design the Navy a warship. You can laugh at that, yet that could bear fruit. This inability to build a warship is beyond ridiculous. The Navy seems to be run by flim flam men.
ReplyDeleteJim
While Elon certainly has some great qualities, his frequent comments about drones being the future, and how manned aircraft and aircraft carriers are obsolete/easy targets means he'd need some classes on naval warfare before being turned loose...
DeleteMore for interest than relevance, but for comparison purposes go back more than 100 years to the Royal Navy’s HMS Dreadnought.
ReplyDeleteThis was the world’s first all big gun battleship, and the Royal Navy’s first ever warship powered by steam turbines, so plenty of brand new technology for the shipyard to work around.
The Dreadnought was laid down in October 1905, launched in February 1906, and commissioned in November of that same year.
Quite an achievement.
Couldn’t happen today.
The US did similar stuff.
DeleteAccording to Wikipedia, the first Perry class frigate was laid down on 12 June 1975 and commissioned on 17 December 1977 (about two and a half years). And the Fletcher class destroyers went even faster. The first one was laid down on 2 October 1941 and commissioned on 30 June 1942 (less than 9 months). Of course in that case the numbers were much higher, the technology was simpler, and it was an existential war so maybe the rules were different.
We used to be able to do this stuff routinely! Perhaps we should assign a couple of historians (or maybe CNO?) to do a study and remind us of how we were able to do it!
Bob, ‘we’ are not the same people we used to be.
DeleteLook at the pics of the boys who went to war 80+ years ago; my dad
was one of them.
Many of us don’t even speak the same language.
We just live in the same place.
It's hard to say, but when we talk about ships and tech being complicated today, I think it's all relative. The ships of WWII probably seemed extremely complex in their day as well, and I don't think that "complexity" is an excuse for long build times. Compare the ships with the state of the art of automobiles at the time- cars were absolutely stone age. Aircraft used turbo- and superchargers, which didn't find there way to cars commonly for 40 years. Fuel injection got it's start then as well, with the first crude systems only following ( and failing) on cars 20 years later, and only becoming functional and widespread 40+ yrs later. Ships ended up with electromechamical fire control computers, radar and sonar, etc. But cars didn't even progress past points ignition systems for another 20+ years.
DeleteSo I think that our WWII warships ( among other things) probably felt much more Star Wars ( Buck Rogers??) to those that designed and built them than we think...
"I don't think that "complexity" is an excuse for long build times."
DeleteIt most certainly is ... to an extent. In earlier times, you'd take two pieces of metal, place them side by side and weld or rivet them together and you were done. Today, the tolerances are very small, everything has to be perfectly aligned, exotic materials require specialized welding/attachment equipment and methods, surface coatings require exquisite care, and so on. A WWII aircraft had, I don't know, several hundred feet of wiring? Today's aircraft have, what, several dozen miles of wiring? And so on.
Complexity does cause longer build times which is why I constantly harp on keeping designs to the minimum required for the function rather than the maximum.
Time of build has many factors other than just weld time (or whatever measure). For example, consider the stifling avalanche of inspections, rules, approvals, environmental checks, and so on that a ship/aircraft has to undergo today compared to - nothing - in WWII. As another example, consider all the OSHA mandated procedures, health breaks, health exams, safety programs and checks, as well as government mandated training sessions on diversity, equal opportunity, sexual harassment, etc. that today's workers are required to attend. That's all time away from the job which makes the job longer. In WWII, you worked 8 hours with a quick lunch break (if you were lucky!) and that's it.
Now, that doesn't mean that all of this stuff that delays builds is good - most of it is worthless! But it is what it is. It's up to us (the Navy) to do everything it can to shorten the build time by controlling the factors it has control over like minimizing the complexity of designs, eliminating change orders, and so on.
I'm reminded of the M4. I know some people hate it but to me it is a brilliant design. I realize the complexity isn't the same but the tank itself was built not only to tank but also to be reliable and maintainable. It was also built to be 'good enough'. Compared to the German cats it was a logistical miracle, and was good enough to fight in 90% of the situations it found itself in.
DeleteWe need more of that philosophy. Purpose built ships. And ships designed to be built and maintained.
Its the difference between a Bugatti and a Mustang GT. The Bugatti wins in almost every race, but you can only buy very few and you spend half the time they exist just maintaining them.
Ironically, the FFG(X) team won the DAU David A. Packard award in 2020 as a top tier Navy acquisition program.
ReplyDeleteU.S. Navy FFG(X) Program Team
"This team accelerated an acquisition schedule of the Navy’s next generation Small Surface Combatant, the Frigate, advancing ship design and procurement by four to six years, equating to more than $500 million in cost avoidance. These eforts resulted in the early award of a multibillion-dollar, open competition, Detail Design and Construction contract. This new contract was awarded more than four months ahead of schedule despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Navy leadership cited this team as a positive example of accelerated acquisition that is changing how the Navy designs and procures ships".
Here is link:
Deletehttps://www.dau.edu/sites/default/files/Migrate/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2021/DEFACQ-DATL_MarApr2021_2020Awards.pdf
I commented this earlier; that the Navy, if they wanted a DE, would be better with something like a modernized Knox. I read this about the Knox:
ReplyDelete"These ships were built on a prod6uction line, with prefabricated modules being assembled upside down, welded together and then rotated into an upright position."
Knox, the lead ship, and likely the slowest, was awarded in '64, laid down in '65, launched in '66, and commissioned in '69.
We have completely lost the ability to plan, design to plan, build to design, and put hulls in the water.
It's infuriating.
Would love to see a modernized Knox. My last ship was one. Really nice ships for their size. I would pretty much leave the weapons layout as it was. Ours had a BPDMS (sea sparrow) launcher aft for self defense that was later replaced with CIWS. Just eyeballing pictures of the box launcher for ESSM the two look to be about the same size. The ASROC launcher had a reload magazine located below with the elevator/reload system under the bridge. We carried a mixed loadout of ASROC/Harpoons. The flight deck and hanger (telescopic) were sized for the SH-2 (barely). It would probably work well for a couple of large size drone. There was supposed to be a MK 48 torpedo room in the fantail (never fitted), ours was used as a crew lounge. I would change the engineering plant, you have three good size engineer spaces (engine room/fireroom/generator room) that could house diesel genpacks, HVAC and all associated equipment, and go with podded propulsion units. Get rid of the old mack, clean up the superstructure, move the hanger torpedo tubes closer to water level and you should have a nice open ocean escort again. ( I might be a little biased though).
ReplyDeleteThat sounds great, honestly. We just need the Navy to figure out what it wants to do. DE? AAW? ASW? Too often it's all of the above.
DeleteI loved how with the Knox's and Perry's they had a mission and built to it. They could do other things too in peacetime but that was bonus to the original mission it seems.
Turns out having hulls in the water and sailors to man them is a benefit all itself when those hulls have a purpose.
To me it was one of the LCS's biggest failures. It tried to be all things to all people and still fit the budget of a small purpose built unit.
"That's part of the problem."
ReplyDeleteComment deleted. Had you left out the personal insults, your comment would have stood. Feel free to repost in a polite and respectful tone.
There is one thing about the ASW stuff that confuses me. I guess I'm just missing something.
ReplyDeleteWhen we talk about the Burke in terms of ASW, from time to time I see comments like "no officer will send a $2.5 billion DDG to play tag with a submarine."
What I don't understand is this: Even if the ship IS doing ASW, why would we want it to play tag (by which I assume we mean get up close and personal) with a submarine? I thought that's what the HELICOPTERS were for.
Helo downtime, basically. 2 helos isn't quite enough to give you round the clock coverage.
DeleteAs far back as the 60s, the Japanese studied this problem and decided that the way forward was a light ASW carrier carrying at least a dozen helos, which lets you do round the clock coverage, or a surge to cover a wider area/prosecute the target. (Sticker shock from the Amatsukaze DDG killed that plan, and they had to make do with the Shirane and Haruna DDH classes, until they finally got their helo carriers in the Hyuga DDH and Izumo CVMs).
There's also the Italian helo cruiser, which is basically a gun cruiser with a flight deck and hangar large enough for 8 helos, but you don't *really* need cruiser guns for the ASW mission...
"2 helos isn't quite enough to give you round the clock coverage."
DeleteI keep hearing this too. But keep in mind that we shouldn't require an individual ship to win the war all by itself. In any actual escort situation, there will never be only one escort. For a battle group or convoy or other high value asset, in a war there will be a bunch of escorts. Maybe 5 or 10 or more. So there won't be 2 helicopters, there will be 10 or 20.
The question then becomes, is it better to distribute the helicopters among the escorts or concentrate them on a helicopter carrier. Concentrating them allows the individual escorts to be smaller and less expensive (and more risk worthy), and we can build more of them. And it's probably more cost effective to manage and maintain the helicopters if they are concentrated.
But, on the other hand, you do have to buy the extra ship (the helicopter carrier). And that ship becomes a single point of failure. Sink it, and all the helicopters go with it.
The choice between those options is above my pay grade, but it does seem to me that there's something to be said for dispersing the risk.
"I thought that's what the HELICOPTERS were for."
DeleteYou're correct to an extent and in a perfect scenario. In reality, helos are used to fix and attack rather than detect. The ship would more often provide the initial detection. Given the quietness of modern subs, that all too often will mean that by the time detection occurs the sub will already be in range of the ship (tag!). In shallow waters, detection is via active sonar which, by definition, means close contact (tag!).
Helos simply don't have the numbers to provide wide area search/detect. Consider the area that, say, a convoy's escorts must cover to eliminate the sub threat. We're talking about something like a 50-100 mile radius from the center of the convoy. Do the math for the area of that circle. It's on the order of 8000 sq.mi. to 30,000 sq.mi. !
In short, anytime there's a sub involved, the destroyer IS playing tag because any detection of a sub will likely be within the weapons range of the sub to the destroyer - hence, playing tag.
"is it better to distribute the helicopters among the escorts or concentrate them on a helicopter carrier."
DeleteAn excellent, and age-old question whose answer depends on the particular scenario and whether you actually have available ships. How many helo carriers do we currently have? None! Even if we built, say, a half dozen or so, only a very few, very high value convoys/task forces would get a helo carrier. Ships conducting isolated patrols or other lesser priority duties would not rate a helo carrier so you have to have distributed helos.
Consider a group of supposedly stealthy Burkes. Do you want to risk their detection by including a large, slow, non-stealthy helo carrier? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the situation.
I don't think that we need as many helicopters for ASW as we seem to be thinking.
DeleteUnless I'm misunderstanding something, the detection process is going to be with fixed wing aircraft and the various sonars mounted on the ships themselves.
Helicopters are not fast and they're not efficient. They don't cover large areas and they can't fly indefinitely without needing preventive maintenance.
What they can do, though, is hover over a spot and drop a sonobuoy or use a dipping sonar to pinpoint the location of a suspected sub and drop a homing torpedo if needed.
That is super valuable.
But unless you are having a spectacularly craptastic day, your ASW escort screen is not going to be prosecuting an endless number of suspected contacts.
Every ASW ship does not need a helicopter. Every third or fourth ship having a pair of helicopters should be sufficient.
The standard ASW ship could easily be a WW2 destroyer sized ship like a Fletcher (or the improved version - Gearing).
Two or three of these could work as a team.
As part of that team, add a slightly larger ship (like a Mitscher class) that would hunt with the team, but also have a pair of helicopters to help prosecute the team's suspected contacts.
Two helicopters should be sufficient for that group. The key to that is not adding helicopters, but having 4 aircrews assigned so that you can always have two crews on duty and two crews resting. That way you can fire up the second helo on the odd chance that you need two at once.
And while helos need regular maintenance, that shouldn't be a problem if you follow CNO's missions instead of deployments philosophy.
To illustrate that point:
- If you are doing months-long deployments, you need more helicopters because some will need to go through thorough preventive maintenance at regular intervals....so your ship needs more hangar space, helicopter parts, and maintenance personnel and equipment.
- But if you go on missions, you only send out on board the ship the helicopters that are not scheduled for extensive maintenance - since you're only going out to conduct a mission and then will be back where you can swap out the helos.
I don't think this is as complicated as we are making it out to be.
Lutefisk
"your ASW escort screen is not going to be prosecuting an endless number of suspected contacts."
DeleteActually, they will be regardless of whether there are actually subs in the area or not! In combat, the prudent commander is going to pursue every suspect noise (whale farts, eddies, bottom objects, wave noise, turbulence, biologics, etc. as if it's a real contact because ... it might be! No sane commander is going to ignore a possible contact in combat. Thus, the available helos will be overwhelmed and sonobuoy depletion has been raised as concern in every semi-realistic exercise.
Here's a real world, combat example, in the Falklands war, the British prosecuted hundreds of contacts and expended most/all of their ordnance despite the fact that the Arg subs were almost never anywhere near them, based on post-war analysis.
"the detection process is going to be with fixed wing aircraft"
DeleteOccasionally, yes, but most of the time, no. We have no carrier based, fixed wing ASW aircraft so that only leaves land based. There are simply far too few land ASW assets with far too little endurance to provide 24/7 coverage for every ship, task force, convoy, or whatever that's at sea.
I'd separate the questions of what does the Navy need and what Navy/industry can actually design and build. Perhaps we need to accept we've lost some ability and lower our expectations. Just build a simple, small single purpose ship, as Comnavops has suggested before, in large numbers as we rebuild our skills and capacity. Then gradually increase size and complexity as our experience returns.
ReplyDeleteIndustry can build ANYTHING we ask for. Obviously, the more bleeding edge we ask for, the more time and money it will require. The issue is not industry, it's unreasonable demands from the military.
DeleteThe U.S. Navy has suffered one setback after another over the past 15 years, without a single positive development.
ReplyDeleteThis has given the Chinese Navy years of laughter, laughing so hard it's nearly cramping up—it needs to see a doctor to stop the laughter.
To be fair, we don't know the true state of the Chinese military because they never release accurate reports. Obviously, they have problems. We just don't hear about them. For example, the story about Chinese missiles loaded with water instead of fuel, if that story is true.
DeleteWhat if? take a half dozen or so of the older Burkes and convert them to ASW command ships. everything aft of the second stack would be hanger/flight deck. Should be able to carry 3 or 4 Helos, leave the AAW weapons fit forward. Paired up with 4 corvette/frigates for an ASW hunter killer squadron.
ReplyDeleteYes, this would be the Burke equivalent of the proposed Spruance class DDH. Hmm ... maybe we shouldn't have sunk the entire Spruance class?
DeleteI've pondered using LPDs to set up a destroyer screen, like for a landing site or island gap. They can carry 4-8 ASW helos and two LCUs. After they are launched, the LCUs have a flight deck atop that folds out, along with fuel bladders underneath, like aircraft use. So the helos operate from the LPD but the LCUs push out a few hundred miles as a rest and refueling platform. I doubt an attack sub would risk detection trying to sink a small LCU of little value. Also great for CSAR support.
ReplyDeleteThat's one of the more interesting ideas I've heard lately. I like the concept but there are some practical problems. Number one is the speed of an LCU. No naval force will ever stop in combat and the average speed will be something on the order of 18-20 kts. An LCU typically has a max speed of around 12 kts. How would an LCU, launched from an LPD, ever get out in front of a task force? It might be possible for a very slow convoy but not a naval group. What do you think?
Delete"After they are launched, "
Why have some sort of complicated folding deck mechanism? Why not just add a permanent "flight" deck if that's what it's purpose is?
"LCUs push out a few hundred miles"
An LCU would be loud and slow - what submarines call a target. This would give away the group's location and offer the enemy a free shot (I'm less sanguine about a sub not wasting torpedoes on an LCU if it was the support source for helos but that's a minor point). Is the benefit worth the drawbacks?
"Number one is the speed of an LCU"
DeleteNote that it doesn't necessarily have to be an LCU. Amphibs can also carry other things in their well decks. For example, according to this:
https://www.twz.com/39240/the-navy-wants-to-get-rid-of-its-nearly-brand-new-patrol-boats
the Whidbey Island class can carry 8 Mark 6 patrol boats, which have speeds up to 40 or 41 knots.
Now the Mark 6 itself probably isn't a good choice because it likely doesn't have good enough seakeeping for routine open ocean operations and it's probably too small to land a helicopter on. I suspect we don't have a vessel in the fleet today that would work but the Sentinel class coast guard cutter is similar in size and displacement to a loaded LCU and something similar with a flat deck (and probably would need to be not as tall) might well work.
A Mark VI boat can carry the same payload as a H-60 LAMPs, so can a boat version do ASW? Sea state is a big issue, but then it can stay on station far longer and even shut off its engines. Our Navy doesn't want to send its huge $4 billion destroyers with 300 crewmen out looking for subs. Why not send out a $4 million boat with a crew of 14 supported by a distant LPD mothership?
DeleteLCU is the largest well deck vehicle out there and its way too small (and light) to land an H-60. Plus freeboard is chancy at best.
DeleteLittle secret on Mk VI. The guide on securing them in a well deck does not indicate they can nest side by side as originally indicated when they were being introduced. Its not quite the same procedure as a flat bottom landing craft.
A USV will have the legs and speed to go out and do the distant screening. The LPD would be a good mother ship.
Not a new idea, we can call these boats "sub chasers."! Great for patrolling port entrances too where subs like to lurk.
DeleteIt is a cancer hard to cure.
ReplyDeleteOnce there is a big Pentagon project. Congressmen elected by you care most are jobs in their districts on top of their donors (cannot say publicly). Lots of interest groups want pieces of pies thus want to insert something into it. Many want it to be omnipotent thus want to put every possible new features into it.
Constellation is a product of above thus its failure is no surprise. If you it to have everything in Burke 3, just build Burke 3, right? Now, Pentagon has generated a new record, ships under construction without design freeze. Ship builder cannot go at full speed, just like workers in production line waiting for instructions on production changes.
Likely, DDG(X) will go same route. You believe your Congressman is right but others are crooks. Any hope? Hopeless!
It all begins with a lack of CONOPS and then inept leadership where concurrency is not seen a a major problem. Also, as mentioned above, the engineering plant required a land based version for training purposes. Now we will have 2 unique ships with unique engineering plants.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder Australia decided to practically double it's frontline manned warships (back to Cold War levels) . It's painfully obvious to them that the US is declining as a military, at least the navy.
ReplyDeleteTheir own aging Anzac's, combined with no US warship being newly designed since the 1980's , meant they even needed Japan to build the first 3 Mogami's since the US navy was going to be in continual decline, while China was in continual build up.
Andrew