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.