I would like to see the Navy split this contract into 3 winners with a guaranteed buy of only 3 or 4 hulls each with an option to buy an additional 28 to 30, but optimally 12 per shipyard. It maybe more expensive but we've always seen diminishing returns out of scale when it comes to shipbuilding. Also since most of these hulls are already developed the often front loaded R&D costs should be a minimal. Doing it this way shipbuilders will have a huge incentive not to slip up. If we run into a capability problem we can cut back on one class and build more of another. If all 3 ships are good then 12 hulls plus all the other hulls in other navies should provide a large enough channel for spares.
My pick would be the meko german frigate. Hitech, the right size and has room for future growth. With the rotating Raytheon EASR and a 16 or 24 cell mk41 vls and a souped up drive train to get 32 knots it's a winner the rest of the equipment can be picked according to budget eg 76mm or 5 inch.
I agree. Lovely ships. I have been on them and had a 5 hour in-depth tour. I was also along sde of them when sailing at speed. They are truly wonderful platforms and with the correct armaments will provide the US navy with what is needed.
I personally think that the NSC style variant is the only one with any chance. The other designs are basically destroyers that are less heavy armed and a bit smaller. The NSC based variant is the only proven design that is actually the size of a FFG
Personally, I hope we go for the F100-series. Those foreign designs are too "foreigny." And the LCS-like designs, with only 16 VLS tubes and, you may not agree with me, the puny 57-mm gun instead of a 76-mm or 5-inch gun is too small.
I wonder if USA Navy is taking note on Australia Navy future frigate program, I bet Navantia F105 design will win as cheap and proven design. But I feel Australian destroyers are frigates. Will USA fit CEA array radar to their frigates?
They have already the SPY series, the TRS-3D and TRS-4D (Germany), Saab Giraffe (Sweden) on their combat ships and the SPY is going to be replaced on new ships with the EASR series. The EASR is build up from modules, which can be connected. This way it can cover a wide variety of radar sizes with the same components. It is planned to use 3 radar block, consisting of 3x3 modules. It is way smaller than on the new Arleigh Burke Flight III versions, but the components would be the same. www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/easr/
I live next to BIW, so I have a personal iron in that fire, but I think that might be more ship then the Navy wants. Australia calls theirs a Destroyer, and that's the function of Spain's even if they call it a Frigate. We already have a solid Destroyer, we need something in between that and an LCS.
Spain has already signed construction order for the first four F110, that fields "only" 26 VLS but has superb anti-submarine capabilities. Although I believe US Navy will go for the extra punch of 32VLS. Salud!
Did the Navy give a dollar amount per ship they're willing to pay or it's a free for all in pricing? Since these frigates will be primarily an escort in a carrier group for its submarine protection with the added benefit of air defense. How many hulls are the Navy thinking per CVN group? There's a total of 10 active carrier groups. I would expect at least two frigates per group. That leaves a number of 20 hulls and n-number of spares. I would expect two SSNs one point and the one covering the rear. The Navy will need 5 - 7 more hulls for their AGR/MEU groups. Basically, you're looking at a minimum of 30 hulls. Say two hulls built per year. It will take 15 years just to do the initial build out. These ships cost have to be kept to $0.75 billion max. Total cost for a 30 hull fleet will be $22.5 billion. Hopefully, the size of the ship stays close to the previous Oliver-Perry class and kept under 5000 tons fully loaded. They better be powered for speed and also electrical power for present and future systems. LCS hulls are a no go with me. They're designed for shallow water and not blue water operations. I could see an LCS be part of an ARG/MEU group since the group will end up in shallow water sooner or later. I did like that presentation of that surface to surface missile module. Twenty four pack of ice cold Hellfires for swarm boat protection. I still feel they should put the gun used on the A-10 Warthog on the bow of these LCSs. :-)
Hmm nope Russian frigates and corvettes can go open sea too... Cold war era frigates were small now they go 5000t+ for example the developing Russian frigate admiral gorshkov will go to 8,000-8,500t while the current is 5,400. And they pack a good punch too. 32 SAM VLS and 16 Antiship + antisub torp launchers... And 130 or 100mm guns And best thing is their prices are low 450M per frigate now.
@@andrej4519 Admiral Gorshkov is around 5400 tons. Maybe your referring to the Super Gorshkov which has 48 UKSK VLS will probably weigh around 8,000 tons. It will be essentially a destroyer since Russia does not have modern destroyer aside from their old ones which was built during Cold war(Soviet Union times).
57mm is very marginal vs ships. That said its probably better in the PD role. ORKA gun launched missile would increase its PD capabilities as well as increase its utility vs swarm attacks. Otomelara has a very solid ammo line up for its 76mm guns however. Including guided AA,GPS guided for fire support as well as IR guided for antiship. Its probably more versatile overall....at a weight and size penalty.
Indian Navy needs such stealthy guided missile trimaran frigate for long range trans oceanic patrol not littoral combat!!! the trimaran should displace around 8,300 tons & 9,500 tons & armed with 24 VLS in the front bow section & 12 VLS in the rear stern section aft of the rear helipad!!!
What I seen so far out of all the frigate designs, Is that Navantia f-105 wins.. But FREMM frigate is not far off..If FREMM do a little better design it will be right up there.. I been waiting for this Video.. Thanx :)
I'm leaning towards the Meko for something cheap (I'm hoping the navy goes for 40 hulls). Fremm wins though assuming the cost isn't crazy. The Lockheed design is fugly as sin (the design last year seemed better). The Austral guy's expression screamed "we're fucked", also the rear vls seemed really exposed.
Yeah, that's the problem with the Navantia F-105 ,,It cost the most out of all of the other designs....But what a ship, and good for Air Warfare, submarine warfare, sea to land warfare, ship to ship warfare...And is already working around the world..
The Navantia proposition based on "Cristóbal Colón" (F-105) of "Álvaro de Bazán" class IMO have the all marks of the winner. Not only because the tech specs (it could receive better CIWS system) but also a story behind it. It was build with heavy help of USN engineers and according to USN standards.
All these companies have US proxies and will be built in US shipyards so that won't be an issue. Also much of the design of F-100/F-105 was with collaboration of Lockheed and other US companies. I would like to see something like the National Security Cutter however I don't think the frigate variant will be far enough along. The longer this gets put off the more stress we are going to put on our DDGs which doesn't make sense.
The LCS ships are an embarrassment. The fact that they're talking about the addition of 24 hellfire missiles in a mission module as if it were a great thing is shameful. Lots of people are getting rich by providing toy boats with negative capability to the Navy. These ships suck away training, personnel, and logistics without providing capability.
They tend to carry more firepower on them, but they don't have the equivalent of OHP now. They did build batch of larger "frigates" that should rather land in destroyer class.
Its because Russia can only build few ships that's why they arm them to the teeth unlike western countries they build different kinds of ships for specific missions
Russia's naval weapons in the past were not as effective as western nations so more were shipped to ensure effectiveness. Starting in the eighties more weapons were shipped as a swarm tactic. They also are overwhelmingly out numbered so they believe that more weapons per ship addresses, in part, this disadvantage.
Not quit they just have different doctrines just like the KIEV class were very strange but turned out to be a ballistic missile submarine defender whilst sub hunter and anti submarine helicopter carrier and local air patrol defense
But yet still not capable to fight against Chinese and Russian warships if they went to 1v1 fight they will lose Russian and Chinese still have superior warships
Paul Kremer what are you guys talking about, the LCS is not even among bidders, it's a littoral ship. The euro FREMM would be the option and is the most proven and mature platform of all tbh, the US Navy can pack it with all the weaponry they want. *Edit: wait, did you mean the Austal LCS or the monohull LCS? The first is in for the bidding, the second is not.
@Paul KremerAluminum hull, no sea keeping ability, must stay out at sea for months at a time. A rotating full crew on a frigate or a destroyer can do it. Ya you can have two operators navigating the ship while the others sleep like in their ads but never in a tension area, you always need lookouts and people on the defensive systems 24/7
@@JasonSellers1979 @Jason Sellers Really love them that Navy decommissioning they First Two Ships in their class (Independence and Colorado will decommissioning In 31 July) And Possibly 4 More, Great Design👏👏 www.maritime-executive.com/article/u-s-navy-wants-to-decommission-six-littoral-combat-ships
I would like to see the Navy split this contract into 3 winners with a guaranteed buy of only 3 or 4 hulls each with an option to buy an additional 28 to 30, but optimally 12 per shipyard. It maybe more expensive but we've always seen diminishing returns out of scale when it comes to shipbuilding. Also since most of these hulls are already developed the often front loaded R&D costs should be a minimal. Doing it this way shipbuilders will have a huge incentive not to slip up. If we run into a capability problem we can cut back on one class and build more of another. If all 3 ships are good then 12 hulls plus all the other hulls in other navies should provide a large enough channel for spares.
My money on the F-100 design simply because it has AEGIS. America does love its AEGIS.
It's loveable. Salud!
My pick would be the meko german frigate. Hitech, the right size and has room for future growth. With the rotating Raytheon EASR and a 16 or 24 cell mk41 vls and a souped up drive train to get 32 knots it's a winner the rest of the equipment can be picked according to budget eg 76mm or 5 inch.
I agree. Lovely ships. I have been on them and had a 5 hour in-depth tour. I was also along sde of them when sailing at speed. They are truly wonderful platforms and with the correct armaments will provide the US navy with what is needed.
I personally think that the NSC style variant is the only one with any chance. The other designs are basically destroyers that are less heavy armed and a bit smaller. The NSC based variant is the only proven design that is actually the size of a FFG
Personally, I hope we go for the F100-series. Those foreign designs are too "foreigny." And the LCS-like designs, with only 16 VLS tubes and, you may not agree with me, the puny 57-mm gun instead of a 76-mm or 5-inch gun is too small.
The new frigates need atleast 32vls however 40 would be better and atleast 76mm gun. I hope they make a little destroyer rather than a bigger LCS.
That F100 tho. I dig its design. It has more space for VLS.
I wonder if USA Navy is taking note on Australia Navy future frigate program, I bet Navantia F105 design will win as cheap and proven design. But I feel Australian destroyers are frigates. Will USA fit CEA array radar to their frigates?
They have already the SPY series, the TRS-3D and TRS-4D (Germany), Saab Giraffe (Sweden) on their combat ships and the SPY is going to be replaced on new ships with the EASR series.
The EASR is build up from modules, which can be connected. This way it can cover a wide variety of radar sizes with the same components. It is planned to use 3 radar block, consisting of 3x3 modules. It is way smaller than on the new Arleigh Burke Flight III versions, but the components would be the same.
www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/easr/
Personally,I find the LCS as a dead end system. I'm sure there will be others who will say that there's still potential. Me all I see is Pork!
I live next to BIW, so I have a personal iron in that fire, but I think that might be more ship then the Navy wants. Australia calls theirs a Destroyer, and that's the function of Spain's even if they call it a Frigate. We already have a solid Destroyer, we need something in between that and an LCS.
Spain has already signed construction order for the first four F110, that fields "only" 26 VLS but has superb anti-submarine capabilities. Although I believe US Navy will go for the extra punch of 32VLS. Salud!
8:33 At first I thought EDM stands for Electronic Dance Music...
what the hell is two & a half ships??? never heard that before!!!
Dear admint look more detail all ship scale while interview like this in all videos.,
Did the Navy give a dollar amount per ship they're willing to pay or it's a free for all in pricing? Since these frigates will be primarily an escort in a carrier group for its submarine protection with the added benefit of air defense. How many hulls are the Navy thinking per CVN group? There's a total of 10 active carrier groups. I would expect at least two frigates per group. That leaves a number of 20 hulls and n-number of spares. I would expect two SSNs one point and the one covering the rear. The Navy will need 5 - 7 more hulls for their AGR/MEU groups. Basically, you're looking at a minimum of 30 hulls. Say two hulls built per year. It will take 15 years just to do the initial build out. These ships cost have to be kept to $0.75 billion max. Total cost for a 30 hull fleet will be $22.5 billion. Hopefully, the size of the ship stays close to the previous Oliver-Perry class and kept under 5000 tons fully loaded. They better be powered for speed and also electrical power for present and future systems. LCS hulls are a no go with me. They're designed for shallow water and not blue water operations. I could see an LCS be part of an ARG/MEU group since the group will end up in shallow water sooner or later. I did like that presentation of that surface to surface missile module. Twenty four pack of ice cold Hellfires for swarm boat protection. I still feel they should put the gun used on the A-10 Warthog on the bow of these LCSs. :-)
Hmm nope Russian frigates and corvettes can go open sea too... Cold war era frigates were small now they go 5000t+ for example the developing Russian frigate admiral gorshkov will go to 8,000-8,500t while the current is 5,400. And they pack a good punch too. 32 SAM VLS and 16 Antiship + antisub torp launchers... And 130 or 100mm guns
And best thing is their prices are low 450M per frigate now.
@@andrej4519 Admiral Gorshkov is around 5400 tons. Maybe your referring to the Super Gorshkov which has 48 UKSK VLS will probably weigh around 8,000 tons. It will be essentially a destroyer since Russia does not have modern destroyer aside from their old ones which was built during Cold war(Soviet Union times).
No info on why the USN is requiring a puny little gun (57mm vs 5 inch).
The US Navy is lined up to have just shy of 80 destroyers with 5 inch guns. Its just not necessary for this frigate to pack a big deck gun
57mm is very marginal vs ships.
That said its probably better in the PD role.
ORKA gun launched missile would increase its PD capabilities as well as increase its utility vs swarm attacks.
Otomelara has a very solid ammo line up for its 76mm guns however. Including guided AA,GPS guided for fire support as well as IR guided for antiship.
Its probably more versatile overall....at a weight and size penalty.
FFG(X) 57mm is set to benefit from the two smart ammunitions being developed, ALAMO by L3 Harris and MAD-FIRES from Raytheon and DARPA.
Indian Navy needs such stealthy guided missile trimaran frigate for long range trans oceanic patrol not littoral combat!!! the trimaran should displace around 8,300 tons & 9,500 tons & armed with 24 VLS in the front bow section & 12 VLS in the rear stern section aft of the rear helipad!!!
سؤال / لو أطلقت جميع الصواريخ اللي في السفينه اقدر اسويلها ريلود مدير اعادة تخزين في نفس الوقت ?
نعم فعلا. :)
Puzzoozoo 👍🏻😅
What I seen so far out of all the frigate designs, Is that Navantia f-105 wins.. But FREMM frigate is not far off..If FREMM do a little better design it will be right up there.. I been waiting for this Video.. Thanx :)
And yes I seen the Lockheed video first...
I'm leaning towards the Meko for something cheap (I'm hoping the navy goes for 40 hulls). Fremm wins though assuming the cost isn't crazy. The Lockheed design is fugly as sin (the design last year seemed better). The Austral guy's expression screamed "we're fucked", also the rear vls seemed really exposed.
Yeah, that's the problem with the Navantia F-105 ,,It cost the most out of all of the other designs....But what a ship, and good for Air Warfare, submarine warfare, sea to land warfare, ship to ship warfare...And is already working around the world..
these fucking fridget designs are crap when compared to the more heavily armed russian counter parts. These enlarged LCS's suck
The Navantia proposition based on "Cristóbal Colón" (F-105) of "Álvaro de Bazán" class IMO have the all marks of the winner. Not only because the tech specs (it could receive better CIWS system) but also a story behind it. It was build with heavy help of USN engineers and according to USN standards.
That's 🔥
The 911 modamir is for my cuntry Algéria 🇩🇿🇩🇿🇩🇿🇩🇿🇩🇿
Well no matter what style or armament you people like,.....by law has to be built by an American company, or in America, something of that nature.
All these companies have US proxies and will be built in US shipyards so that won't be an issue. Also much of the design of F-100/F-105 was with collaboration of Lockheed and other US companies. I would like to see something like the National Security Cutter however I don't think the frigate variant will be far enough along. The longer this gets put off the more stress we are going to put on our DDGs which doesn't make sense.
@@timaahhh ya,...new frigate will probly go to lockheed and fincantieri, MMC.
they are partners and have 2 of the 5 bids.
Zumwalt II
Austal USA will get this contract
no
anything but LCS redux
Navantia
The LCS ships are an embarrassment. The fact that they're talking about the addition of 24 hellfire missiles in a mission module as if it were a great thing is shameful. Lots of people are getting rich by providing toy boats with negative capability to the Navy. These ships suck away training, personnel, and logistics without providing capability.
Its to bridge a gap that was lost since they cancelled the NLOS program. If they hadn't cancelled it, it would have a capable SSM.
Again, Russian designs seem more heavily armed
They tend to carry more firepower on them, but they don't have the equivalent of OHP now. They did build batch of larger "frigates" that should rather land in destroyer class.
Its because Russia can only build few ships that's why they arm them to the teeth unlike western countries they build different kinds of ships for specific missions
Russia's naval weapons in the past were not as effective as western nations so more were shipped to ensure effectiveness. Starting in the eighties more weapons were shipped as a swarm tactic.
They also are overwhelmingly out numbered so they believe that more weapons per ship addresses, in part, this disadvantage.
Thanks guys for your insights
Not quit they just have different doctrines just like the KIEV class were very strange but turned out to be a ballistic missile submarine defender whilst sub hunter and anti submarine helicopter carrier and local air patrol defense
But yet still not capable to fight against Chinese and Russian warships if they went to 1v1 fight they will lose Russian and Chinese still have superior warships
zagros zemnako lol what. Do you know what SM2, SM6 are.
The Chinese and Russian have frigates and corvette too, just saying.
China and Russia have junk rust buckets
Personally,I find the LCS as a dead end system. I'm sure there will be others who will say that there's still potential. Me all I see is Pork!
Paul Kremer what are you guys talking about, the LCS is not even among bidders, it's a littoral ship. The euro FREMM would be the option and is the most proven and mature platform of all tbh, the US Navy can pack it with all the weaponry they want.
*Edit: wait, did you mean the Austal LCS or the monohull LCS? The first is in for the bidding, the second is not.
@the david -- Both LCS hulls are in the bidding as "up-gunned" variants. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFG(X)#Contenders
@Paul KremerAluminum hull, no sea keeping ability, must stay out at sea for months at a time. A rotating full crew on a frigate or a destroyer can do it. Ya you can have two operators navigating the ship while the others sleep like in their ads but never in a tension area, you always need lookouts and people on the defensive systems 24/7
Navy loves them.
@@JasonSellers1979 @Jason Sellers Really love them that Navy decommissioning they First Two Ships in their class (Independence and Colorado will decommissioning In 31 July) And Possibly 4 More, Great Design👏👏
www.maritime-executive.com/article/u-s-navy-wants-to-decommission-six-littoral-combat-ships