[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Posted by Ralph Wood on December 20, 2025, 12:44:46, in reply to "What happens to the funds dedicated to the FFGs/"
Somewhere in all the reading it was stated that the Navy did intend to redirect funds earmarked for the FFGs to "other programs."
What part of a VLS armed ship is not missile capable? A ship carrying NSMs is not missile capable? The NSF will have ability to carry either (and perhaps both. I have seen additional drawings.) And, if they are not carrying either at a given moment, but are in company with about a half dozen MASCs with VLS, then there is your missile armament. So, this is not LCS all over again. And if there is a hit on any of them, the rest of the force still remains. Unlike a hit on an FFG which loses you "everything" with its loss.
The NSF will have a 57 mm gun. The FFG has a 57 mm gun. The NSF has SEWIP-lite. So does the FFG. The NSF has RAM. So does the FFG. The NSF has Nulka. So does the FFG. The NSF is illustrated with 16 NSMs. FFG carries 16 NSMs. If NSF can't defend itself, then neither can the FFG. The FFG has a 32 cell VLS. Originally intended to mainly have ESSM or an improved ASROC, Congress also required the ability to carry Tomahawk. So, the loadout of defensive ESSMs is "finite," and reduced by any cells otherwise in use. Same situation for the NSF. Its VLS (Mk 70s) also face the same situation. It will have additional VLS capacity (Mk 70s) on the accompanying MASCs. How many MASCs it is in company with will determine the total VLS capacity available, but it is potentially more than 32 cells.
The FFG does have better air defense radar. The NSF has good enough radar to detect incoming threats and to defend itself. It is not an FFG, though, so that's all the radar it needs. It would also have access to the data from any sensors on the MASCs. Those could be stationed over the horizon, and detect threats even farther away than the sophisticated radar of the FFG.
Can the FFG also work with the MASCs? Certainly. In which case there would be the FFG's 32 cell VLS and better radar added to the mix. But, it is better to have 73 NSFs working with the MASCs than 20 FFGs. The NSF should be affordable enough to obtain in these numbers. 
Previous Message
I wonder if they will shift the funds from the FFG 64 though 68 to the new whatever. Also I assume they will all get new hull numbers, as they will not be missile capable ships, in truth - more LCSs that can't defend themselves, let alone convoys (one of the stated reasons for a new frigate).
I keep hearing Ralph state that the NRF will have drones accompanying it(them). Note: that the FFGs were designed with bays that can accommodate drone control centers. Dropping over 2,000 tons of displacement and "bolting on" missile launchers does not sound like a winning strategy to me, sounds like LCS all over again. Previous Message
"Most of the world" does not require an Arleigh Burke destroyer. Yet, those are pretty much all we have. 4th fleet is using them to run down drug smugglers. To quote one of many articles out there on this whole subject:
“The Constellation class frigate was canceled because, candidly, it didn’t make sense anymore to build it,” Phelan also said. “It was 80 percent of the cost of a destroyer and 60 percent of the capability. You might as well build destroyers.”
Would you rather we run down drug smugglers with a ship with 60% of the capability of a Burke instead?
A patrol frigate fits the greater part of the world situation just fine. It provides affordable US Navy presence around the globe, and allows the "battle force" ships to go face the more serious threats. A reason I posted in another thread this image of our fleet:
https://laststandonzombieisland.com/2025/04/14/new-ships-of-the-navy-poster/rtx-navy-poster-2025/
Was to illustrate that our surface fleet is predominantly "nothing but Burkes." Which we are then using for everything because they are pretty much all we have. Not every situation requires us to respond with one. If we have affordable alternatives, the Burkes get sent to where they're needed.
You must also grasp the value of numbers. The individual frigate itself is "not impressive." But, if I have the numbers such that I can respond with "an armada" of them, reinforced with accompanying unmanned vessels, and they all have as many Mk 70s as they can carry, that is actually much more effective than showing up with a couple of "very impressive" Constellations or Burkes. To obtain numbers, the platforms must individually be cheap. To be cheap, they can not be "overdone." They must be capable of the minimum. Their combined numbers then produce the necessary force.
We need a patrol frigate of this sort even more today than we did 15 years ago. Previous Message
Yes, but hat does not sound promising to get it right this time.
A shipyard and a design, which was cancelled because of delays - either the officially given reasons were different from the real ones or the decision to use that design to replace a delayed design are - difficult to understand.
There are also other obvious criticisms: the design appears to be very weakly armed, comparable to a Chinese Type 056 corvette which now serves with most of its armament removed by the Coast Guard. There is also a lack of sonar and proper anti-aircraft armament for self-defence, as well as a lack of space for future improvements. It is a patrol frigate which would have been suitable 15 years ago. Such a ship would have been understandable to design and order 15 years ago. But today?
Responses