US Navy News and updates

Ananda said:

Saudi Arabia's First LCS-Based Frigate Launches at Fincantieri

The first vessel of the Royal Saudi Naval Forces (RSNF) new multi-mission combat ship Tuwaiq Class was this week launched into the water at the Lockh...

maritime-executive.com

U.S. shipyard launches first MMSC frigate HMS Saud for Saudi Arabia in Wisconsin

Saudi Arabia’s first MMSC frigate HMS King Saud was launched in Wisconsin by Fincantieri, advancing outfitting and trials under the $11.25B Tuwaiq Project.

www.armyrecognition.com

It is ready, it is cried out Made in USA, and moreover it is a Frigate. If they want 2028 USA design being launch, this is what more likely available.

Click to expand...

Umm... No. Or rather, not "no," but more like, "Hell No!"

Remember that this vessel is based upon the Freedom-class LCS. Had the USN really wanted more LCS vessels, rather than conventional frigates like the FFG(X) was intended to delivery, the US could have ordered them. I tend to think that often US decision makers get entirely too caught up in concepts which they believe will be revolutionary or transformational, rather than continue to have concepts evolve.

If people remember back to the early 2000's when Stryker brigades were being formed, the idea had been that smaller and lighter Stryker vehicles could be used for rapid attacks and advances and that heavy armour like the M1 Abrams were not needed, since the greater speed and mobility of the Stryker vehicles would negate the need for so much armour protection. The LCS programme itself was in some ways quite similar but the requirements rapidly caused the vessels to have to expand from perhaps large patrol boat size into frigate-sized vessels.

As I recall it, the LCS programme was to more or less deliver replacements for the USN's OHP frigates, whilst the Constellation-class frigates ordered for the FFG(X) programme were ordered to delivery capabilities that it turned out LCS could not. Going back to a design which was already determined to really not be what the USN needs... I tend to believe the USN would be better off taking the plans for the OHP and then re-do them to fit modern kit and capabilities first.

OldTex said:

Apparently the NSC will form the basis of the new FF(X) according to NAVSEC as reported in DefenseNews.

"The first hull of the future FF(X) class, which will be based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s Legend-class National Security Cutter design, is expected to hit the water in 2028 as a more nimble companion to the Navy’s larger warships."

It might turn out that the flight I of the FF(X) will be essentially unmodified or minimally modified NSCs in order to get the hulls in the water by 2028. This would then allow time for the changes to the design to be made in preparation for the flight II. The changes would likely include VDS tail, AAW missle system(s), upgraded flight deck/hangar/magazine to cater for MH-60R plus other changes.

Click to expand...

The first two ships will essentially be the same CG NSC painted in hazegray.

Whether the VLS will be included is to be seen/determined. The 4923 design does cater for it. If it does, it will be more than what the LCS offers. (Not in the current renders though, which shows no VLS and a 57mm) If not, it will be no more than what the LCS can do, just on a more reliable hull. Almost the same set of equipment (AN/SPS-77(V)3, SeaRam, NSM, likely similar EW).

The 2028 dateline... sounds more to meet the closing of the Trump administration, much like how they want to time NASA's moon landings to 2028.

Todjaeger said:

Remember that this vessel is based upon the Freedom-class LCS. Had the USN really wanted more LCS vessels, rather than conventional frigates like the FFG(X) was intended to delivery, the US could have ordered them. I tend to think that often US decision makers get entirely too caught up in concepts which they believe will be revolutionary or transformational, rather than continue to have concepts evolve.

Click to expand...

I Agree with your assesment, why want to go with design base on something that not really build on the purpose. However my post more to ponders on question of 2028 date line for new Frigates to be launch.

So with 2028 time line, what choice they have asside using modified LCS or Modified Coast Guard Cutter. I just sense despite all LCS short comming, using LCS as base is better then using CG Cutter design as base.

So, initially it appears to be a large grey constabulary OPV?

Ananda said:

I Agree with your assesment, why want to go with design base on something that not really build on the purpose. However my post more to ponders on question of 2028 date line for new Frigates to be launch.

So with 2028 time line, what choice they have asside using modified LCS or Modified Coast Guard Cutter. I just sense despite all LCS short comming, using LCS as base is better then using CG Cutter design as base.

Click to expand...

From my POV, using anything based off one of the LCS designs would be starting off heading in the wrong direction before first metal is even cut. The LCS hullforms and propulsion systems were designed to enable the vessels to reach very high speeds for rapid transits (under the right conditions at least) but between the compromises to reach such capabilities, as well as having a design with the potential for open ocean crossings, the entire design is compromised in terms of what is fitted, as well as what can be fitted. The design itself might have adequate volume to fit additional systems, but IIRC there are some rather sharp limits in terms of DWT available. If one wanted to fit a CMS, sensor and armament package appropriate for a frigate rather than a patrol boat, as well as any gen sets and environmental controls needed, there are not really much in the way of margins to do so. Sure, it might be possible to redesign and replace the propulsion systems and fuel bunkerage to free up additional displacement, but by moving large masses around a ship design, one would likely impact the overall buoyancy and trim of a vessel. This likely could be overcome during various design phases, but the more redesign work required, the more the start of construction would get delayed. If the plan is to have the lead ship in the water by 2028, that leaves up to three years to get everything done, from design work, ordering long-lead items, and all of construction. Selecting a design which the USN has already found to be inadequate/inappropriate, then ordering major design changes which could easily take over a year complete, would likely leave too little time for the lead ship to be in the water by the end of 2028.

As for basing something off the Legend-class cutter, the situation IMO becomes a bit different. Size-wise, a Legend-class and a Freedom-class are comparable in terms of length and beam (127 m v. 115 m, and 16 m v. 17.5 m), though the draught is 6.9 m v. 3.9 m, is is the displacement where things really start to look differently, with a Legend-class cutter having ~1,200 tonnes greater displacement and the design itself was developed to include options for expanding the weapons, sensor and combat systems. Changing a conventional monohull design around which already had space and weight allocated to fit additional systems and capabilities, as well as a larger displacement margin available to fit such systems is IMO likely going to be easier than trying to get frigate systems into monohull design intended to reach high speeds.