US Navy News and updates

[Ranger25]

USN defines FFG(X) in RFP

The USN has defined the future FFg(X) in a recent RFP

http://snagfilms-a.akamaihd.net/d7/...frigate-replacement-program-n0002418r2300.pdf


The U.S. Navy lists several capabilities, among the most important including:

A fixed, phased-array radar
An "AEGIS-derivative" combat system that uses a common source library
The ability to launch a single MH-60R Seahawk helicopter
Four canister launched over-the-horizon weapons
SeaRAM
MQ-8C Firescout
Other capabilities in "tier two" include various sonar equipment such as variable-depth and towed-array sonar, Cooperative Engagement Capability to be able to share target data with other ships and aircraft in the fleet, rigid-hull inflatable boats, Next Generation Surface Search Radar, and a MK 110 57mm gun and related systems.

 

[Ranger25]

USN defines FFG(X) in RFP

The USN has defined the future FFg(X) in a recent RFI

http://snagfilms-a.akamaihd.net/d7/...frigate-replacement-program-n0002418r2300.pdf


The U.S. Navy lists several capabilities, among the most important including:

A fixed, phased-array radar
An "AEGIS-derivative" combat system that uses a common source library
The ability to launch a single MH-60R Seahawk helicopter
Four canister launched over-the-horizon weapons
SeaRAM
MQ-8C Firescout
Other capabilities in "tier two" include various sonar equipment such as variable-depth and towed-array sonar, Cooperative Engagement Capability to be able to share target data with other ships and aircraft in the fleet, rigid-hull inflatable boats, Next Generation Surface Search Radar, and a MK 110 57mm gun and related systems.

 

[colay1]

It's actually a Request For Information. When the RFP comes out, it should reflect the actual specs including presumably what AAW system ie. ESSM and/or SM-2 to be incorporated to meet the convoy escort mission.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

The USN has defined the future FFg(X) in a recent RFP

http://snagfilms-a.akamaihd.net/d7/...frigate-replacement-program-n0002418r2300.pdf


The U.S. Navy lists several capabilities, among the most important including:

A fixed, phased-array radar
An "AEGIS-derivative" combat system that uses a common source library
The ability to launch a single MH-60R Seahawk helicopter
Four canister launched over-the-horizon weapons
SeaRAM
MQ-8C Firescout
Other capabilities in "tier two" include various sonar equipment such as variable-depth and towed-array sonar, Cooperative Engagement Capability to be able to share target data with other ships and aircraft in the fleet, rigid-hull inflatable boats, Next Generation Surface Search Radar, and a MK 110 57mm gun and related systems.

If you look at the RFI it's actually "eight canister launched over-the-horizon weapons" I've seen that same error in every article making the announcement.

OTH Weapon with FCS (2x4) - canister launched

The "Self Defense Launcher Capability" leaves some flexibility for the industry

Self Defense Launcher Capability - To increase the FFG(X) self-defense, the Navy is particularly interested in understanding the trade space surrounding the addition of Launcher Capability (to support Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block 2 and/or Standard Missile-2 Active missiles). Solutions should describe the launcher type, cell quantities the proposed design could accommodate, and if able to be cost effectively integrated include considerations for strike length variants to maximize weapons flexibility. The Navy is also interested in the potential space, weight, and volume the launcher represents that can be included in the FFG(X) design as well as how many cells could be accommodated if design changes were pursued along with understanding the capability trades and cost impacts of those changes. Any innovative approach vendors may have in providing a Launch System or increasing capacity by making design trades across FFG(X) requirements will also be considered.

 

[alexsa]

The USN has defined the future FFg(X) in a recent RFP

http://snagfilms-a.akamaihd.net/d7/...frigate-replacement-program-n0002418r2300.pdf


The U.S. Navy lists several capabilities, among the most important including:

A fixed, phased-array radar
An "AEGIS-derivative" combat system that uses a common source library
The ability to launch a single MH-60R Seahawk helicopter
Four canister launched over-the-horizon weapons
SeaRAM
MQ-8C Firescout
Other capabilities in "tier two" include various sonar equipment such as variable-depth and towed-array sonar, Cooperative Engagement Capability to be able to share target data with other ships and aircraft in the fleet, rigid-hull inflatable boats, Next Generation Surface Search Radar, and a MK 110 57mm gun and related systems.

To be honest it looks like the LCS with a reduced top speed specification and some increase in growth margin.


Basically it appears the RFI is using the anticipated frigate version of the LSC as a baseline

 

[Joe Black]

To be honest it looks like the LCS with a reduced top speed specification and some increase in growth margin.


Basically it appears the RFI is using the anticipated frigate version of the LSC as a baseline

Wonder if it would be simpler if they just adopt the Navantia's F-110 Frigate.

 

[swerve]

There are other OTS options from Europe & East Asia. Some would need changes to the weapons (e.g. remove Sylver/Aster & fit Mk 41/ESSM) but that's not difficult.

 

[Ranger25]

There are other OTS options from Europe & East Asia. Some would need changes to the weapons (e.g. remove Sylver/Aster & fit Mk 41/ESSM) but that's not difficult.

I like the F110 concept for multiple reasons but wonder if the USN would seriously consider it.

The Saudi version of the Freedom class would also fit the requirements. 16VKs, OTH missiles, etc

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/18/new-saudi-frigate-design-details-emerge

 

[swerve]

The F110 has one drawback: it's still a long way from being built.

 

[spoz]

Besides the LCSs, Ingall's modified NSC would fit the bill pretty well.

From the PoV of someone in Oz, it's a pity they didn't go down this track 5 years ago, might have made the Sea 5000 competition even more interesting.

 

[colay1]

Would the type of propulsion ie. water jet vs prop factor significantly in any evaluation?

 

[CB90]

Would the type of propulsion ie. water jet vs prop factor significantly in any evaluation?

Currently looks like only in an indirect fashion: ie efficiency/range, ability to meet speed requirement.

At the RFP stage, there may be more explicit preferences.
I have always heard from ASW types that water jet isnt preferred from a radiated noise perspective.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have always heard from ASW types that water jet isnt preferred from a radiated noise perspective.

not exactly the best thing for the acoustics when you've got huge cavitation and induced transducer effects getting shovelled into the headsets

 

[colay1]

Would the water jet noise be less an issue with tethered Towed Array and Variable Depth sonars?

 

[alexsa]

not exactly the best thing for the acoustics when you've got huge cavitation and induced transducer effects getting shovelled into the headsets

Not to mention that eye-watering vibration around the transom as all the force of the outrushing water is transferred into the structure of the tunnel. ..... and yes I agree it is eye watering at speed but they are a bag load worse than a highly screwed propeller at low speed.

 

[CB90]

not exactly the best thing for the acoustics when you've got huge cavitation and induced transducer effects getting shovelled into the headsets

This is something that's baffled me...I have heard it referenced to water jets in general, but am curious if it's a LCS design specific issue (propulsion system designed for high speed over stealth) or a limitation of water jets in general.

No firsthand knowledge with jet drives outside of small craft (where props would also be run at high speed anyway) so it's a big confusing as a similar concept (pumpjet) on subs and the Visby's clearly works fine.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is something that's baffled me...I have heard it referenced to water jets in general, but am curious if it's a LCS design specific issue (propulsion system designed for high speed over stealth) or a limitation of water jets in general.

No firsthand knowledge with jet drives outside of small craft (where props would also be run at high speed anyway) so it's a big confusing as a similar concept (pumpjet) on subs and the Visby's clearly works fine.

probably because sub pumpjets are a bit different in design, whereas a water jet is basically a steerable underwater firehose - a bit more brutish in execution

and then there are the operational differences for usage in a sub compared to a skimmer

 

[colay1]

More on the thinking that went into and expectations from the FFG RFI. Some indications on expected costs, manning, etc.

Exclusive Interview: The Navy's Surface Warfare director talks frigate requirements



On the RFI, you make it clear that you want the ship to be able to keep up with the carrier. How does that affect the mechanical and propulsion systems you are looking at? Are you talking about a very traditional twin or single screw ship with an LM-2500 engine?

Welcome to the RFI. This is exactly the kind of thing I’m trying to find out. I do not want to tell four or five or however many ship designers what we need their plant to do. What I’m telling you and what we put in here is what we would like the ship to do. If changing the plant design is going to cause a radical departure, but you can do everything else? OK, lets talk about that. But this is exactly what we’re trying to determine.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Welcome to the RFI. This is exactly the kind of thing I’m trying to find out. I do not want to tell four or five or however many ship designers what we need their plant to do. What I’m telling you and what we put in here is what we would like the ship to do. If changing the plant design is going to cause a radical departure, but you can do everything else? OK, lets talk about that. But this is exactly what we’re trying to determine.

the above response is pretty well standard fare when seeking responses

the vendor can provide anything they want if they think that it addresses the basic conops reqs

they are expected to provide reasoning and logic in breaking from the expected platform as well

the killer gets down to through life costs on substantial changes - so if anything out of the norm is offered up then one would expect them to be able to provide a gold user as proof of life

 

[colay1]

The CNO envisions a 3-pronged approach to building capability sooner rather than later ie. build more ships faster, enhance ship lethality and capabilities and employ advanced networking to enable enhanced interoperability and synergies within the fleet. The end-result is to make available to commanders and individual warfighters a platform-agnostic resource for information and payloads 24/7.

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/21/cn...ads-for-fleet-commanders-to-access#more-26944

Once that netting takes place, Richardson outlined his vision for operational commanders – from the numbered fleet commander to an individual pilot in a cockpit – being able to tap into a collection of all the sensors operating in the theater and make use of all the weapons on ships in the area, with both the incoming data and the outgoing munitions being a “service” for operators to use as needed.

“The fleet commander will have all of the sensors in his [area of responsibility] or her AOR at his or her disposal. If you’re properly networked too, all of the platforms, the blue platforms, are at that fleet commander’s disposal as well, and on those platforms are payloads, and so now you’ve got a system where, hey, I’ve got connectivity to all those payloads, it’s a service approach to payloads,” Richardson explained.