tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post878787628339909374..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Lockheed Proposed FrigateComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68886017337992317332017-12-04T14:06:14.408-08:002017-12-04T14:06:14.408-08:00I think you are very right there sad to sayI think you are very right there sad to sayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-695625316962547172017-12-04T14:03:02.737-08:002017-12-04T14:03:02.737-08:00Wasn't thinking about any ship in particular w...Wasn't thinking about any ship in particular was just curious but if it's the LCS spinoff crap then maybe the canister launch ASROC in 8 of the 16 canisters instead of the anti shp missiles would be more useful or any ship that,has canisters for that matter Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55490658786883912032017-12-04T07:20:41.875-08:002017-12-04T07:20:41.875-08:00Given the Navy's history of poor decisions I t...Given the Navy's history of poor decisions I think it's quite likely that we'll choose the LCS as the new "frigate" just as they did during the last "frigate" selection process. I strongly suspect that the current competition is just a sham to placate Congress.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55546423119841054562017-12-04T07:17:58.574-08:002017-12-04T07:17:58.574-08:00As I understand it (and I could be wrong!), the ol...As I understand it (and I could be wrong!), the old box-launched ASROC was unguided. It just flew a ballistic path from the launcher. It was aimed by train and elevation of the launcher. Assuming that's true, a cannister ASROC, being unguided and unable to train or elevate, could not be aimed so, no, it would not work. <br /><br />Presumably, the VL-ASROC is guided since it has no train/elevation. Thus, a VL-ASROC might be suitable for cannister launch. <br /><br />What ship did you have in mind for such an arrangement?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13825988881791820212017-12-04T05:13:10.002-08:002017-12-04T05:13:10.002-08:00One thing to consider also though I don't like...One thing to consider also though I don't like it the Saudis recently purchased 4 of the Freedom class multi mission class ships what's to say that our navy simply won't continue building 20 more of them for us Yikes!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35010553412399371752017-12-04T04:31:51.773-08:002017-12-04T04:31:51.773-08:00Sorry that's ConNavOpsSorry that's ConNavOpsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81745152957770787752017-12-04T04:31:02.171-08:002017-12-04T04:31:02.171-08:00A weapons question if you don't mind I recall ...A weapons question if you don't mind I recall the ASROC system as having a old box launcher in the past could ASROC be configured to be launched from canisters much like the Harpoon and multiple other systems do if that is possible then a 8 canister mounted ASROC align with 8 anti ship plus the 16 cell VLS most likely would be quite a loadout would you not think just a question not suggesting anything ConNavApsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74074901152774931322017-11-28T07:52:19.282-08:002017-11-28T07:52:19.282-08:00Ok my friend that covers the Canadian ship busines...Ok my friend that covers the Canadian ship business just posted on facebook that you guessed it Locheed Martin is proposing the T26 for that countries new frigate along with BAE among other contractors if they were that confident in the Freedom class why wouldn't they be proposing instead of the Brit design it's getting interesting and I'm hoping the end of all LCS knockoff proposals Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-65876187358235888402017-11-27T07:02:24.998-08:002017-11-27T07:02:24.998-08:00Of course the Flight III Burkes are considerably h...Of course the Flight III Burkes are considerably higher topping the 2 billion Mark last Iv heard Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31627306089074835452017-11-27T07:00:22.693-08:002017-11-27T07:00:22.693-08:00You read my mind Iv also read it could up to 1.2 b...You read my mind Iv also read it could up to 1.2 billion for that much we could buy almost any of the European high end frigates Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5590969811104253462017-11-27T06:32:14.991-08:002017-11-27T06:32:14.991-08:00The report is correct. Of course, the Navy wishes...The report is correct. Of course, the Navy wishes for lots of things, most of which don't happen. Recall that the Navy wanted the LCS to cost $200M. What the Navy wants the frigate to cost is immaterial. It will cost what it costs and the Navy will poorly manage the program and drive costs up.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48330900259058334902017-11-27T06:27:34.648-08:002017-11-27T06:27:34.648-08:00It's a ABC report quoting the APIt's a ABC report quoting the AP Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59772588361842907572017-11-27T06:25:15.154-08:002017-11-27T06:25:15.154-08:00I just read an article that stated the navy is loo...I just read an article that stated the navy is looking at spending around 800 to 950 million per copy and has requested for proposals to be submitted in December does this sound reasonable or feasable Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8888483708140199422017-11-20T06:42:59.571-08:002017-11-20T06:42:59.571-08:00Thanks for the clarification much appreciated Thanks for the clarification much appreciated Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54595760296293604662017-11-20T05:44:11.811-08:002017-11-20T05:44:11.811-08:00Nick and ShermansWar discussed this in previous co...Nick and ShermansWar discussed this in previous comments.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50251097749408408932017-11-20T05:42:16.698-08:002017-11-20T05:42:16.698-08:00The requirement is for a parent design that has be...The requirement is for a parent design that has been produced and operated at sea. The Type 26 is excluded from consideration.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61864368132394284172017-11-20T05:05:10.770-08:002017-11-20T05:05:10.770-08:00CNO "we're looking at around $1.4B"
...CNO "we're looking at around $1.4B"<br /><br />The Justification Book total budget of $14.4B for ten ships, plus Conceptual Design $0.7B plus R&D of ~ $0.8B , total $15.9 B, Navy currently budgeting total $1.6+ per FFG.<br /><br />For comparison AB Flight III JB total budget showing $4.4B for two ships under "To Complete" years, so AB ~$2.2B verse ~$1.4B for FFG.<br /><br />Figures taken from:-<br />CRS, Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs November 9, 2017, <br />FFG(X) Program Funding, based on Navy briefing on FFG(X) program given to CRS and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) September 20, 2017. R&D funding is located in PE 0603599N Frigate Development and for FY2016 only, PE 0603581 LCS.<br /><br />Total spend FY2016/22 R&D $620M, Procurement FY2019/22 $5,072M, Qty FY2020/22 4 ships<br /><br />DOD FY2018 Budget Estimates May 2017 Navy Justification Book Shipbuilding and Conversion, Volume 1-155 from FY2020 for FFG<br /><br />Total spend FY2020/22 plus to complete $14,420M for 10 ships including Outfitting and Post Delivery. <br /><br />Notes on detailed figures, not shown as bust 4,096 characters limit on posting :)<br />CRS show spend of $655M in FY19 for Procurement, presume that is the budget for Conceptual Design Proposals contracts, not included in JB Shipbuilding and Conversion budget.<br />CRS shows total R&D to FY22 of $620M, assuming three more years at $70M for the additional 6 ships at 2 per year $830M, R&D also not included in JB Shipbuilding and Conversion budget.<br />CRS excludes Outfitting and Post Delivery costs, included in JB.<br />JB only shows 10 ships, not planned 20.<br />JB anomaly in FY22 Outfitting and Post Delivery cost of only $126M for two ships whilst all other years that's average per ship.<br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12567148391327455726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33565561795537460402017-11-20T04:02:51.673-08:002017-11-20T04:02:51.673-08:00Here comes an option, possibly better.
http://www...Here comes an option, possibly better.<br /><br />http://www.pressherald.com/2017/11/15/biw-pursuing-contract-to-build-20-guided-missile-frigates-for-u-s-navy/<br /><br />BIW has submitted its concept to FFG(X), teaming with Navantia. Apparently, The base-model should be the mini-Aegis frigates Navantia has built. There are two possible:<br /><br />1. F100 frigates: 6500tons, equipped with Aegis/SPY-1D radar, MK-41 VLS x 48. Serviced in Spanish navy (5) plus Royal Royal Australian (1 + 2)<br /><br />Those mini-Aegis frigates have greater capacity and survivability than the exist two LCS models.<br /><br />2. Fridtjof Nansen class in Norwegian navy. 5300ton, equipped with SPY-1(F)/MK-41x8(the actual capacity is 32).<br /><br />Comparing the European competitors (FREMM/Type 45), those Navantia mini-Aegis frigates are closer to US system since they were designed around US made Aegis combat systems and weaponry.Captain Picardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02736892601012543101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-80588790865611872892017-11-19T23:58:49.254-08:002017-11-19T23:58:49.254-08:00A question would a mature design be something like...A question would a mature design be something like the T26 which in the process of building or would it be something that's already commissioned and in the water just curious is all not referring a preference to any one particular design just,as long as it's not a LCS knockoff Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29210048078252104922017-11-19T12:01:53.616-08:002017-11-19T12:01:53.616-08:00Regarding cost, the Navy can "target" an...Regarding cost, the Navy can "target" any cost they want but history says they won't even come close. Recall that the LCS target was $200M?<br /><br />So, take that $495M "basic" cost and double it cause the Navy is always way, way off. Then add around $400M for GFE (the Enterprise radar alone is reported around $180M+) and we're looking at around $1.4B which is probably a decent estimate.<br /><br />The Navy makes me laugh with their cost targets. They may as well say the target cost is "free" cause it has just as much chance of happening as $495M.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91434094334906500722017-11-19T10:06:46.551-08:002017-11-19T10:06:46.551-08:00I expect your right (:
PS Industry Day Brief acce...I expect your right (:<br /><br />PS Industry Day Brief accessed via<br />https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=587c6fc7c90aeeb9c212cf57562444da&tab=core&_cview=1Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12567148391327455726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47865216214578798872017-11-19T07:45:34.773-08:002017-11-19T07:45:34.773-08:00I'm afraid you're setting yourself up for ...I'm afraid you're setting yourself up for a major disappointment! I think you're reading way too much into some of the "requirements". For example, the range in the RFI was given as around 3000 nm, as I recall. Unless it was raised in this document (which I haven't been able to view yet), the LCS still fits quite nicely. Similarly, acoustic management could mean anything from "don't use incredibly noisy waterjets to a full treatment of acoustic isolation mounts for ALL machinery - not just engines -, hull shaping to minimize flow noise, Prairie/Masker, etc. So, again, that doesn't rule out the LCS. Similarly, service life allowance is something all ships have - some more, some less - including the LCS. The Navy accepted very small margins for service life allowance, weight margins, stability margins, etc. on the original LCS so there is no reason why they wouldn't do so again. The Navy repeatedly demonstrates a remarkable inability to learn from past mistakes!<br /><br />Finally, you're overlooking the fact that the Navy has already been through one round of evaluating other frigate designs and settled on the LCS as the basis. We can criticize that round but there's no getting around the fact that, for whatever reason, the Navy seems determined to keep the LCS!<br /><br />Now, recognize that I'm not arguing for the LCS. I'm dead set against it! I'm just pointing out that nothing I've seen, so far, precludes the LCS and my assessment is that the LCS will be the Navy's choice. I hope I'm wrong!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-65056279752598695562017-11-19T05:06:41.015-08:002017-11-19T05:06:41.015-08:00Highlights on FFG(X) PM515 CD RFP Industry Day Bri...Highlights on FFG(X) PM515 CD RFP Industry Day Brief 17 November pdf<br /><br />"FFG(X) Program Schedule <br />• Conceptual Design Proposals due: 18 December 2017 at 1300 <br />• Award is expected late 2nd QTR FY18 <br />• Period of Performance is 16 months from award <br /><br />Purpose of the CD Phase <br />• Mature parent designs* to produce the most cost effective and capable designs to meet FFG(X) requirements <br />• Promote competition through multiple awards <br />• Reduce program risk for DD&C; particularly with regard to the integration of warfare system elements and cyber architecture *Parent Design is a ship design that has been through production and demonstrated (full scale) at sea <br /><br />• Is targeting Basic Construction Cost (BCC) of $495M<br />─ Does not include cost of non-recurring construction plans and other associated costs for a lead ship, Government furnished combat or weapon systems, or Change orders<br /><br />FFG(X) Top Level Requirements <br />Requirement*<br />Acoustic Signature Management <br />Vertical Launch System <br />Range <br />Service Life Allowance<br />Accommodations<br />*Threshold and Objectives values are found in the System Specification "<br /><br />Thoughts on above :-<br /><br />$495 million basic construction cost, assume equivalent to LCS Seaframe cost, depends on what is classified as GFE. FY2018 budget request for the procurement of two LCSs for a combined estimated cost of $1,136.1 million, $568 million each.<br /><br />The top level requirements, Acoustic Signature Management, Range and Service Life Allowance would seem to weigh against either the LM LCS Freedom or Austal Independence frigates proposals.<br /><br />Left with HII NSC/FF4923 4,675t, GD BIW Navantia F100 Alvaro de Bazan Class 5,800t or F-310 Nansen Class 5,290t and Fincantieri FREMM 6,900t.<br /><br />If serious about Acoustic Signature Management the FREMM would be my favorite as the only ship with Hybrid propulsion and Fincantieri's ability and expertise to meet cost cap with their commercial knowhow rather than GD BIW or HII, they both lost out to the commercial shipbuilder Eastern Shipbuilding FL for the new USCG OPC contract. <br /><br />You need diesel-electric gearless propulsion to reach the lowest radiated noise levels with single-stage resilient engine generator mounting as an effective standard solution for addressing structure-borne noise, a double-stage resilient mounting system with intermediate raft doubles the attenuation efficiency and engine enclosures as with Type 26, a dedicated ASW frigate.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12567148391327455726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75888298511634405412017-11-18T12:46:50.665-08:002017-11-18T12:46:50.665-08:00"No wonder the Navy complains of shortage of ..."No wonder the Navy complains of shortage of funding, they don't help themselves by leveraging modern ship design."<br /><br />I think this is a huge mistake that modern navies are making. The push to minimize ship operating costs, meaning crew size, is a search for fool's gold. Operating costs matter only in peacetime and navies are built for war. <br /><br />The number one attribute of successful damage control throughout history is numbers of crew. Large crews make for successful damage control. There is no point to designing a ship to be operable by a single crewman if that results in losing multi-billion dollar ships in combat due to ineffective damage control.<br /><br />On a similar note, the ability to continue fighting when hit is dependent on having sufficient extra crew to absorb the inevitable crew attrition, replace critical stations, and tend the wounded. Again, minimizing operating costs only to see a ship mission killed because of a single casualty is pointless. The LCS is the classic example of this. The LCS lacks sufficient crew to even operate the ship safely and reliably in peacetime. What will happen when the LCS encounters combat and suffers even a few casualties? The ship will be helpless due to insufficient crew size.<br /><br />Operating costs are an artifact of attempting to run the Navy like a business case. Business and combat are incompatible. Combat requires gross excesses of crew, fuel, munitions, etc.<br /><br />Well, you may say, when combat comes we'll just add more crew - problem solved! No. You can't add crew to a ship that isn't built for it. Consider the LCS. It was built with only a very limited berthing, galley, food and water storage, and heads capacity. It can't accommodate more than a very, very small increase in crew size and any increase, no matter how small, will cut into the ship's endurance because the food and water (among other factors) stores will be depleted faster. <br /><br />Further, high tech, modern ships can't be suddenly manned by brand new draftees. They simply can't operate these high tech, computerized, technological marvels of shipbuilding. There's something to be said for less advanced ships!<br /><br />Yes, we could design a frigate to run with one crew member but even a trash basket fire would sink the ship. A bit of hyperbole but it makes the point.<br /><br />Combat is not business.<br /><br />How do we pay for more crew? Well, it starts by spending the funds we have wisely. Suppose we had not embarked on the LCS path? That's a LOT of money that would have been available for additional crew across all ships. Suppose we had not proceeded with the abortion of the F-35? Gobs more money? We spent $25B on the Zumwalt program and have what to show for it? A ship with no ammo for its main gun and, because of that, no purpose for the ship. That's $24B for more crew. Suppose we had built more Nimitz's instead of Fords? That's around $7B per carrier that would be available for more crew. I can keep going but I think I've made my point. The Navy has plenty of money if they spend it wisely.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10078227728907546162017-11-18T09:12:08.167-08:002017-11-18T09:12:08.167-08:00Navantia are currently designing the new F110 frig...Navantia are currently designing the new F110 frigate designed to replace their Santa Maria (OHP/FFG7) class. It will be larger and include 24 VLS cells for SM-2 and ESSM, using the LM IAFCL, Integrated Aegis Fire Control Loop, to control Aegis and SM-2's while integrating with the Spanish SCOMBA CMS. The ability to use SM-2 is just what is specified in the FFG(X) RFI.<br /><br />One of the design priorities for the F110 is the inevitable issue of cutting back on operating costs, crew size, analyzing different ways that allow reduction of the ship complement, compared with FFG and F-100 frigates, which has a direct impact in the procurement cost, decreasing the cost of the life cycle and in the displacement with less accommodation areas on board. Using new technologies allow ship designs with a higher degree of automation and unmanned systems on board, capable of conducting some of the tasks that traditionally the crew would have to perform and designs involved that will at least not require the permanent attention of crew.<br /><br />Due to the Navy nonsensical decision to only allow only parent design ships currently at sea for the FFG(X) Conceptual Design contracts they are missing out on the new generation of frigates, eg Type 26 and the Navantia F110 with lower operating costs and will be building new "old" frigates when the rest of the worlds navies will have moved on.<br /><br />A classic example is the new Korean Aegis KDX-III Batch II destroyers, 11,000 tons and 128 VLS cells with a requirement for a crew size of 200 sailors for the Batch II. That's almost half of the Batch I Sejong the Great-class, based on the DDG-51, crew complement. Compares to the AB Flight III's with a crew size of 300 plus. Guesstimate Navy's additional personnel operating costs through life of ship, 100 sailors at $50,000 per year incl'd training, retirement etc, 30 years and 20 ships total $3 billion over and above what Korea will be funding. <br /><br />No wonder the Navy complains of shortage of funding, they don't help themselves by leveraging modern ship design.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12567148391327455726noreply@blogger.com