@Prov Voqued LCS is a corvette, Coast Guard cutters are frigates. LCS is better suited to use in anti-piracy, US Navy doesn't have small ships for quite a time so they always have to resorted to using destroyers.
The US Navy Admiralty was hypnotize into buying the sales pitch of used car and snake oil salesmen concerning the Littoral Class of ships and Zumwalt Class Destroyers. Snake oil and car salesmen who NEVER kept the full promises of both weapon systems. Legally that is a breach of contract...but of course this is you know....normal operations in Defense Sales. I wonder if the US Navy desires just one Iowa Class BB to be in operation?
Prov Voqued they’re the largest ships capable of handling in shallow waters, and are really effective against pirate tactics and even against larger boats with the new AS missiles.
@@subrajitdey3514 I believe USA military readiness Pacific Theater plan based upon Chinese threats. I don't think this gentlemen was supporting China. If you mean a "foot up" China's backside....I agree with you Xigza.
these are for your country you are not american who is american actually ? United States only knows war and killing civilians And today americans project is finished in middle east Now speaking russia and turkey Also pacific accept one country and its china firstly america fight with corona world is better without america
brilliant news, I was onboard with Finncanteri bid... proven ship with unique power generation from diesel electric ... and they have proven they can build ships, eg (LCS) ... complete bid from these folks will ensure they Navy gets exactly what it needs and pays for..
I think the F-100 design and the FREMM design are the two biggest contender (I am sure the navy doesn't have the stomach for another LCS variant...). And FREMM with its hybrid Electric propulsion system and being a ASW designed platform (where F-100 isn't... I heard "stories" that its noise signature isn't ideal for ASW work), probably is the major scoring point that pushed this design to win..... only insiders can tell us about this story later .... I think the navy picked the right ship.
@@steamedcream7671 There most certainly is. The FREMM design is only going to be able to use 3 of the 4 SPY-6 antenna arrays it needs to allow for the full capability of the SPY-6, thus the FREMM radar capabilities will be somewhat degraded compared to what the F100's would have been, and the FREMM is going to need almost $800 million in new design work to redesign it to use American radars, combat systems, communications and weapons. Also because the FREMM was not designed for the SPY-6 radar, its going to lose all it's stealthy capabilities. The F100 was already designed to use the SPY series radar, it would have needed $200 - $300 million in redesign, and it already had space for the 4 antenna arrays baked into its stealthy design and it would not have had to use a non-stealthy mast like the FREMM will now have to use, in fact the FREMM mast is going to be a modified Burke mast. It was a terrible decision, the navy picked the 2nd best ship and Marinette Marine because they hate BIW CEO Dirk Lesko. That's what the decision came down too. As long as Dirk Lesko is at BIW the Navy is not going to give them anymore shipbuilding contracts, I mean, FFG(x) was right in BIW's power zone, think Arleigh Burke FFG's. This was almost as bad as the decision to build the LCS, and a serious mistake to give it to one of the shipyards that f--cked it up to begin with. Of course Lockheed is not part of the FFG(x) so the guys at Marinette will likely build a better ship than what Lockheed allowed them to build vis-a-vis LCS.
@@soulsphere9242 It has two sub hunting helo's, the ship itself does not have to be primed to be so quiet. It will be killing subs 20 to 50 miles from where the ship is located anyway. I don't think you quite understand how modern anti submarine warfare works. Most subs are first detected not by surface ships but by aircraft and/or the new mobile SOSUS system, surface ships and their sensors do not often make the first detection of enemy subs.
@@jamesbrown5600 first of all, the FREMM is not a design of a ship, it was a joint Franco-Italian program to reduce costs, i.e. the French and Italian FREMMs are extremely different, don’t share the same design, don’t have the same hull, superstructure, electronics, armament and role. Second, the F-100 has never been taken into account, first because it is an older not modular design based on the Burke, and because there wasn’t an international call for a bid. Only companies that already had shipyards and installations in the USA were approached (Austal, Fincantieri,..) that’s why neither Navantia, Naval Group or others were even approached. Third, the design of the constellation class is a redesign just partly based on the Italian FREMM, and the Italian FREMM itself isn’t incompatible with the SPY-6. None of the companies approached had a on the shelf design to give the USN, everyone was either a redesign of an existent design, such as the constellation, or a completely new design. Fourth, the mast is the same as the Burke and will be the same on every other ships. It is a USN requirement to put this mast on.
@raiden z Wrong, F100 was by far the better ship as it was already designed for American weapons, sensors i.e. the SPY-6, and American comm systems . F100 would have needed $200-$300 million in design changes whereas the FREMM is going to need $800 million in redesign costs. Also the FREMM will no longer have stealth capabilites as it will lose its stealthy mast, whereas the F100 already had the 4 antenna arrays baked into it's design and thus would not lose any of its stealthy characteristics. So the FREMM is going to cost way more than F100 due to 3 to 4 times the redesign costs, and FREMM will not have any of its stealthy charasteristics whereas F100 would have retained its stealth properties and $500 to $600 million less in redesign costs. Please explain to me again how FREMM is the better ship? The only reason the Navy picked FREMM and Marinette is due to the fact that they hate with a passion BIW's CEO Dirk Lesko, as almost everyone does, he's a complete asshole and a terrible CEO. Anyone else could have been CEO at BIW and the Navy would have picked the F100 and BIW as the winner of FFG(x), but they will not be giving anymore shipbuilding contracts to BIW until Dirk Lesko is gone and a competent CEO is at the helm. One other tidbit, with $800 million in redesign costs and a minimum of $1 Billion just to build the first in class, the $1.39 Billion bid to build the first one is a joke, it's going to cost much closer to $2 Billion for the design and construction of the first FFG(x). You can mock me now but in 5 or 6 years you'll see how correct I am. I work in this business and have worked with the navy for 30 years, I know whereof I speak.
The F100 is more AAW focused, while the US Navy needs an ASW frigate. It's redesign would have been more extensive than that of the FREMM, that already has a dedicated ASW variant.
Seems like the design will be complimentary to the Arleigh Burkes. The destroyers have the heavier gun and a lot more VLS tubes, while the frigates have surface attack missiles and a 57mm that's better at anti-air and anti-missile fire then the 5 inch on the destroyer.
La ciencia y la tecnología es el futuro es el desarrollo es proteger a nuestra población del enemigo expansionista gue es el comunismo silencioso grasias Pedro x desde Miami
I always wondered why there were no CIWS alongside the RAM for point defense... so the main gun will be the CIWS with advanced guided munitions. That's pretty cool!
The reality is that USN was in need for a ship with more anti-submarine capabilities which the A.Burke lacked. The FREMM will have a hull and towed sonar and 2 ASW helo's but also significant air-defence capabilities with 32 VLS for SM-2/ESSMs(has room for 16 more VLS) and especially ship to ship capabilities with 16 NSMs. Especially the last part is important because I believe that was always a western disadvantage compare to Russia or China for example, the western lack of ship to ship firepower and capabilities. And western designs always were packing few anti-ship missiles which on top of that they were old designs, not enough to punch through modern ship defences. And that's important because It doesn't matter if you have loads of cruise land attack missiles or anti-ballistic missiles or surface to air missiles in general in your arsenal(VLS) if you cant win a sea fight first against an opponent that has simliar or better capabilities in ship to ship fight then you cant properly use your ships for other tasks, the west used to fight countries in the last decades that have no navy capable to oppose them, but right now in our modern era things are dangerous even for the most capable navies and opponents arm themselves with modern anti-ship capabilities capable to deny you the use of your ships in significant zones of the world. Also note in closed seas like Mediterranean or Baltic or Black Sea etc which are very hot zones at the moment, A.Burkes will have problems against diesel Subs especially if they have AIP system which makes them even more stealthy, in closed seas diesel Subs have significant advantage compare to a nuclear attack sub because they are much quieter, can stay still in the bottom running only in electric power and thus its easier for diesel subs to set a trap hiding in small pockets and if they have AIP they can stay weeks submerged. So USN choosing FREMM makes more sense because it has significant better, way better ASW capabilities than A.Burke and also way better punch for surface warfare, its more suited for closed seas. As a Greek, my government selected the newest Belh@rra design for the next frigate but personally I prefer the FREMM design because its more mature and well proved with 19 ships already in service, while the Belh@rra(FTI) is more of a risk, it has great capabilities on paper but its a very new design and as all new designs they have to go first through puberty. So great choice for US navy, ironically Hellenic navy choose the FREMM design first but most likely due to political reasons, changed it to Belh@rra.
@@davidhouseman4328 Ships were always a threat, even at the high of the cold war against the soviet navy, western ships had very little armament against other surface targets, while the soviet navy packed a huge arsenal of ship to ship missiles. Sorry to say that but if in the 80s there was a shooting war between Soviet navy and US navy or even NATO, the soviets would have a significant advantage and I truly believe the kill ratio would have been in their favour. The reality is yes after the collapse of USSR enemy navies were not much of a threat anymore and west didn't bother to keep developing more capabilities for surface warfare, until the hard reality in the last 10 years really hit us. Many navies today possess destructive missiles either launching from ships, subs, airplanes or land batteries, very dangerous for modern navies, making many areas forbidden to ship safely.
@@vadrak6197 How were they targeting these missiles. The horizon is only a few dozen miles away. The edge of a carriers air wing is hundreds of miles away. Carriers became dominant because they could see the enemy when the enemy couldn't see them, same as subs. Surface ships are just support.
@@davidhouseman4328 There were many methods to guide those missiles, ASW/ASuW airplanes which they can provided targeting over the horizon, also Helicopters have similar role, satellites can also be used, today its even easier with drones, better satellites and ASW/ASuW airplanes that have hundreds of km range of detection. Especially the P-700 Granit anti-ship supersonic missile have a unique function, you can launch a volley, lets say 8 P-700 and one of them will pop up in higher altitude to provided guidance for the rest 7 via data link, if that missile was shot down, another one will pop up to resume that role, Soviets were not stupid for stacking large numbers of anti-ships missiles in their ships that had 3-4 times the range of western missiles if they didn't have any method to guide them so far. Carriers today against a peer adversary are not dominant at all, in fact they are very vulnerable, with missiles like the P-800 Onyx(600km range), or the anti-ship variant of the Kalibr(3M-54T) that has greater range or even the newest hypersonic Zircon that has a 1000km range, or the air launched hypersonic Kinzhal with 2000km or even anti-ship ballistic missile Chinese DF-26 with more than 2000km, even the new American LRASM anti-ship missile which might not be a supersonic but still has 1000km range and has stealthy characteristics, those types of missiles will force the aircraft carriers to stay way out of their range basically taking them out of action, because fighters dont have so much range to cover the distance, jets like F-18 or even F-35 will have a combat radius 500-600km at best. The most potent threat in the 80s against US battle groups were the Oscar II class subs of guided missiles, they were carrying 24 of those monstrous P-700 Granit, also their dedicated carrier destroyers bombers like the Tu-22M which could carry the Rh-15 or the huge Rh-22 antiship missile that had range of 600km and speed 4.5 Mach was great threat.
@@davidhouseman4328 the radar mast are quit high tho and it could be enough to just now the rough area the enemy is in based on enemy radar emissions for instance. And especially in the black sea or Caspian see where there is little room anyway.
Since the Navy brass totally botched the LCS choice, I'll just be happy that ANY frigates are coming. You just shake your head wondering where the Navy came up with the Admirals who made the incredibly wasteful decisions to proceed/select the LCS. When we were seeing videos (on TH-cam) promoting crew comfort as a main selling point of LCS, you knew we just wasted billions on junk.
FFG-62, the lead ship in the class is already behind schedule and over budget. Will this be the third surface combatant procurement disaster in a row???
@@davidhouseman4328 You guys need to understand why the Zumwalt's were built. They were built as research platforms for new technology, much like the reason the Seawolf submarines were built. Those are still the quitest subs ever built and they've now been specialized for the many intelligence gathering and spy missions for which subs are used. In due time you will see that the Zumwalt's are going to be technology super highways for the fleet and they'll be very effective spy platforms as they can do some really cool things that the general public, and hopefully our enemies and adversaries do not know about and likely will not know for 30 to 50 years untill the NDA's run out.
Can anyone enlighten me why it doesn't have an enclosed integrated mast? I know in combat looks matter little but the design looks dated for a supposedly 2030's warship compared to other countries.
The Italian 127mm gun that comes standard on the FREMM is probably a superior choice to be honest since it expands the engagement range and allows the ship to fight medium-range air-launched anti-ship missiles by going after the fighters rather than just shooting missiles as they come in. Having the 57mm is pretty superfluous given the power of the RAM. A RAM and a 127 would be a lot more effective then a 57mm and a RAM. I just feel like the 57mm is fighting a threat that doesn't exist given the Italian 127 mm that comes standard with the class would be perfectly adequate against attack craft and gives more than twice the standoff distance. 17,000 m for the 57 versus 30,000 for the 127mm. Plus the 127mm can fire volcano long range guided ammunition out to 100km. The price difference is only about $5 million per unit so would be well worth it. Additionally the FREMM has a lot of extra tonnage to carry the heavier weapons system so it wouldn't affect the stability of the ship. I don't get the navy's love affair with the 57 mm. It's size makes it unusable against larger targets and given current-gen fast targeting systems the threat of small attack boats is pretty negligible to a ship armed with large caliber naval guns. I get that bigger isn't always better but within the next 20 years we will be seeing the end of complete naval dominance and fighting larger surface combatants will become a real possibility.
Conner Perkins - The Navy is using the 57mm here because it is already used on other small ships. It is more economical to have commonality than a gun unique to one ship type. The small caliber allows more ammunition to be carried on the ship. Advanced guided rounds under development will make up for the small caliber by putting more rounds on target. One would suffice for small boats. The frigate is not expected to be in a fight with heavily armed and armored ships. The USN has plenty of large guns on destroyers and cruisers, and antiship missiles as well.
See-Saw - There are already versions of this ship which have been sold to other countries. The US model is customized to USN requirements. Other countries would specify their own configuration.
The 57mm gun is also supposed to be getting BAE's hyper velocity projectile(HVP) developed from the round their railgun uses. The round was already tested last year. With all the new ammunition the gun is supposed to get the 57mm will still be a potent threat.
Australia, Britain and Canada considered the type 26 because they all are countries under the British Monarchy and as such have to privilege British industries. The US navy doesn’t have this requirement.
@Mithra Risen I was kind of wondering about that myself, but from what I understand, the US Navy does not envision these ships being used for shore bombardment work, negating the need for a larger artillery piece. Also, larger surface warship would more practically be engaged with using anti-ship missiles. At the same time, the Navy is concerned about the rising threat of small craft attacks, which would lend itself to a smaller caliber weapon, but with a higher fire rate. This is where the 57mm comes it. In a pinch, it can have the same cyclic fire rate as some machine guns, with a shell large enough annihilate a small attack craft. The Boefors model can also go AA in a snap, which makes it a viable, secondary point-defense weapon against missiles and aircraft.
DARPA and other contractors are preparing extraordinary munitions for the 57mm gun. Also it's not gonna be a hassle to keep enough oto melara 76 mm guns in storage
@Mithra Risen The priority now is defending against small boat swarm attacks and the 57mm has a higher rate of fire and can engage more targets more rapidly. Also the smaller 57mm rounds allow the ship to carry more reloads. It is similar to the reason the military shifted from the larger and more powerful 7.62mm infantry rifles to the smaller and lighter 5.56mm rifles. The faster firing gun has also been found to be more effective against low flying threats. Naval gunfire support is of lesser concern in the coming "near peer" conflicts. Its the same reason the Navy cancelled the Zumwalt destroyers which were focused on naval gunfire support mission. The main job of the frigates will be convoy escort and anti submarine duties. The will free up the heavier destroyers for front line combat. When the frigates are traveling with larger task forces it will form the outer ring for small boat defense. Also the frigate has secondary capabilities in the Anti air and anti-surface roles with its VLS and NSMs respectively.
Weapons specifications are subject to change. The important thing is they know it won't corrode into uselessness or break down constantly. A big plus is it's not aluminium.
The aviation types won again with a third of the deck and superstructure going to aviation assets. Plus the forecastle and aft lime handling room is not covered like the Italian and French fremm’s. Italian fremm has either a 127mm and a 76mm. Or two 76mm’s guns.
@@lechardonrouge6172 nop since the FR and IT version just have 15% communality. However the funny part is that the US modification makes them look more French then Italian ... (even if the fr variant is the smallest)
57mm gun is way too small. I would prefer 2 127mm or even 2 76mm. 127mm would be best for a ship of this size. Also are there ASW torpedoes on this ship?
Yes there are torpedoes. As for the fun and any other armament it is not the builder that chooses, it is the USN that chooses which and how much armament goes on.
I wonder why they went with the normal RAM launcher instead of SeaRAM. I guess they decided more missiles is a higher priority than a self-independent system with its own radar? At least on the old OHPs, they had a self-independent Phalanx CIWS.
CIWS is perfectly handled by 57 mm which can use air burst ammo and has longer firing range than old school systems like Phalanx. Also there are missile systems to shoot down incoming threats.
I just hope it isn't another aluminum hulled fair-weather vessel only, like the Perry class frigates, then the LCS's. Needs to be rugged, deadly, and able to serve for 40 years or more. I served on a Perry class; was a good boat, built in the 80's, and cashiered out by 2010. And they were not allowed in the Atlantic in heavy seas, because the aluminum hull would break. Then the even worse LCS debacle... In the meantime, carriers and battleships and destroyers serving everywhere for 40+ years. But this FREMM frigate has a good record so far in other fleets, so hoping it will serve us well, and keep the seas free for all, wiping out pirates, keeping China in check, and drug runners in port.
If the U.S. Navy want's more frigates in production due to sudden changes in defense actives and demands, will Fincantieri be able to issue licenses to manufacture FREMM copies to other U.S. ship builders? The Mark 45 gun should of been a more realistic choice for the South China Sea Freedom of Navigation Operations. Even then, Congress has to figure out where to base these brand new frigates that can sustain them, that means investing more on dry docks, ports, and naval bases on already crowded and expensive coast line real estate and cost of living. Merchant ships will also become vulnerable and escort services will be very unlikely if not restrictive. The POTUS would then need to fill in vacancies that are relevant to the potential flash point in the South China Sea.
Yea and no cwis and only one other protection system facing the rear. Seems kinda bad. But then again they are waiting for direct energy weapons and it's only supposed to be in service 2030.
@@possiblyadickhead6653 57mm is the CIWS. Longer engagement ranges are needed for faster missiles. and 57mm class means you have room for guidance packages.
@@dwwolf4636 In the world of communist propaganda 57 become CIWS? www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=487&ct=2 www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=456&ct=2 Now if '57mm is the CIWS? Why doesn't the ... United States Navy say that?
All frigates are essentially light cruisers by WW2 standards. The original term Frigate, as used by the French: referred to any independent ship smaller than a ship of the line I.e a Battleship.
@@rocketassistedgoat1079 i am aware of that. The original designation of the Leahy and Belnap Criosets was Frigate and was a deliberate reference to the Navy's first 6 Frigates. However, I don't think the Nsvy is reverting to that designation.
@@johnshepherd8687 If you're aware of it; then why your original comment? Frigate, today; is probably used for for political/economic reasons. It's a friendlier name and an easier sell to the public, than Destroyer. Especially as the U.S already has about 90! of those [which are really guided missile cruisers]. But you know that too, right?
@@rocketassistedgoat1079 Because my comment was an historical note. These ships are meant to fill the hole left by the retirement of the FFG-7 class of ASW escorts. They are too large and too expensive for that role.
@@johnshepherd8687 Well, my comment was also a historical note. All frigates today are essentially light cruisers by tonnage and also light cruisers by mission; commerce protection. Not that that's their only job. But yes, agreed; the U.S just can't seem to help themselves: and want the best of everything-even if it defeats the original purpose of the design-cost effectiveness. The Fremms are huge, complex ships. I also think it's the wrong choice, for that reason; they have the Burkes for taking on large powerful surface combatants. During the 1930s, Britain needed a force of 60 cruisers to protect her worldwide trade. Obviously, they couldn't be the huge behemoths being built by Japan and the U.S-intended for fleet use. So the designs got smaller and smaller, 'till they settled on the 6 gun Aresthusas-as the 8 gun Leanders were deemed to be too expensive. Today; the Type 31 would fit the role of a modern Aresthusa. The expensive Type 26's are intended for fleet escort.
@Legio XXI Rapax French started the project in 2000, Italian came into the project in 2002, truly started in 2004 , nearly stopped in 2006 because Italy was not able to bring the necessary fund, nor adapt the technology to their own Fremm version. Italian had to work with american companies to transfer technology to develop their version. Result Italy slow down the French project. Wait to be an adult and to have been in the army to talk !
@@Benito-Musolesi French started the project in 2000, Italian came into the project in 2002, truly started in 2004 , nearly stopped in 2006 because Italy was not able to bring the necessary fund, nor adapt the technology to their own Fremm version. Italian had to work with american companies to transfer technology to develop their version. Result Italy slow down the French project. Wait to be an adult and to have been in the army to talk !
@@ganikus8565 french are not able to build a ship... Take a look at de gaulle carrier was so bad project and built that has lost the propellers the first day on see and must go arround for years with the small propellers keep from the scraped clemceau Was to short for airplanes and must be reworked, always on harbour for problems and full rusted due bad material used. The same president Giscard de estain named it the half carrier. The name is the same but are 2 different type of ships arrond 300 tons of wheight. Fincantieri was selected by US Navy. Fincantieri has a large number of companies in USA We ars 3000 years are building ships, when we were already ROMA french still live over trees and caves and have not the scripture. Potable eater is arrived only in 1976 on france and still din't use soap...
The first of these is supposed to be ready in 2026. At the rate things are going in the world, we may want to have Fincantieri put a 2nd & 3rd shift on at the shipyard.
Is one gun not an enormous single point of failure or are these guns extremely reliable? Is it fast enough when the ship is attacked from four angles? I don’t know anything about ships and guns so this is a genuine question and not a disguised comment.
The gun is somewhat of your backup weapon, Missiles are your primary. Also swarms shouldn't be coming from multiple directions. That would be a failure of your situational awareness rather than weapons.
Even if extremely reliable, a single gun can be damaged and, if not placed on the mast, it will have a quite large blind spot. It seems quite strange to rely, for air and surface close protection, on a weapon that doesn't work it the threat comes from the stern. Italian FREMM frigates, have two 76mm, or a 127mm and a 76mm. marinecue.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/FREMMf.bmp
There they go again throwing money away , you have to ask the question is America serious about defense ? The baseline model of this frigate is 250 million dollars but with American spec 795 million dollars . And I guarantee you one thing , when it is completed in a few short years it will need a major upgrade costing 500 million dollars .
You get what you pay for. The baseline FREMM is priced using European sensors, weapons and comm systems. American stuff is much more expensive because they're so much better and more reliable and the American FREMM is going to have many capabilities that the Euro FREMM's don't have, our ships need to do more stuff, that's partly why they're more expensive. Also, our sailors, airmen, soldiers and marines deserve the very best equipment, vehicles, weapons, sensors and comm gear that money can buy, after all, it's their lives, not yours, that depend upon that being the case.
The base model of this frigate is 600 million Euros. 684 million dollars. Double the cells, slightly lenghten the hull and build it in a shipyard in Wisconsin that had never assembled one, and the costs will rise to 795 million dollars.
At 20-30 of them you are inefffect getting extra Burkes as they can fill in less where the extra fire power isn't needed. Going for 90 over extra Burkes and you start reducing your firepower. They have a 1/3 the cells but over half the cost.
they are allies but UK got a deal a with huawei they dont listen to US anymore.. i think US does not trust UK that as much right now and australia only depends on china..
@@steamedcream7671 yeah more capable getting destroyed because they have a lot of bombs inside it and it once hit those bombs inside it by the torpedoes, it will blow like a mushroom cloud and sink to the bottom of the ocean. do not beef with me, I'm just saying a fact
I want to remove many technical doubts for those who write below, read and use the web translator:www.aresdifesa.it/2020/05/03/ecco-come-saranno-le-fremm-per-la-us-navy-armamento-e-sensori/
FYI Fremm is 50% French and 50% Italian design. It stands for "Fregate Europeenne Multi Mission" in French or "Fregata Europea Multi-Missione" in Italian
Mark Paintner - A frigate operates in a lower threat environment than destroyers and cruisers. The 57 mm gun is the same used on Coast Guard cutters. The ammunition for a larger gun is more expensive and takes up more space. This gun will do the job.
The 57mm IS CIWS. Also, someone like you doubtless made the same comment when replacing MGs on fighters with cannon during WW2. The British and Germans did it yrs before the Americans. "But, but it's NEW".
I've heard a few reports saying that the FREMM may go over the navy's cost cap by quite a significant amount. Personally, I preferred the Navantia proposal - seemed more developed and robust, with or without the full Aegis. But I guess the smaller hull had less potential for power and electric production?
The FREEM, are in service with 4 Navies Worldwide, while the Navantia Design is only in operation with Spain and Norway, and rumour has it that the Norwegian frigate sinking after a collision was part of the reason the U.S. navy chose FREEM, also the Italian Frigate Alpino spent an entire deployment cycle on the US east coast and Navy leadership were impressed with her performance. As of right now the FREEM is probably one of the best frigate classes in service worldwide, and in all honesty they are pocket destroyers with only the number of VLS cells hampering them in that role.
I think they have a big margin with the government supplied equipment side. But given it's doing virtually everything a Burke does but with less cells it can reach 2/3 the cost and be good value.
@@davidhouseman4328 Hm, that would make sense then. Though I'm wondering if the U.S. navy is really aiming for a diverse mix of ship capabilities. The FFFGX program is still giving the navy 20 units of a ship that would be the high-tech, high-end pride of other navies. I read an article recently saying that the U.S. should start to consider even smaller and truly cheap types of ships - OPV's and Corvettes with decent offensive capabilities; similar to what Russia, and most of Asia is moving towards.
@@potatopants4691 It may be viable for Russia as they work close to home with the support that gives. Doesn't seem to fit the US's expeditionary nature.
@@setantii298 Every other navy would describe a 7500 tons, 500 feet long ship as a destroyer but 32 is still sufficient for it. 48 or 64 would've been better but seeing how they're trying to keep the price low it's enough and they will probably make sure the Navy can upgrade to more cells in the future
32 is enough, won’t be carrying SM-3, or Tomahawk and its primary role will not be AAW,, its ASW so doesn’t need 96 cells, the ability to carry 2 MH-60R, where Burkes can only carry one is more important, it also has 2 Sea RAM CIWS Missile systems for self defence, the Burke doesn’t use Sea RAM. A probable Missile loud out of 8-16 SM-2 36-64 ESSM 8 VL ASROC 16 NSM 42 Sea RAM will give it plenty of punch
Mas malakas pa ito kaysa don sa bago nating bili na frigates galing south korea. With it's displacement of 7,500 tons parang destroyer na yung category nya.
@@anarchyandempires5452 right but their development is slow. if both countries could work together on it, development, production, and upgrades would be easier and faster.
@@jeffgeller2576 as close an allies as Israel and the US are we are both still separate Nations with no binding treaties, the LCS ship may have been relative failures but they are still loaded up with a lot of bleeding edge US military technology, we can't be so reckless when it comes to our secrets.
The Navantia-General Dynamics option were better. It was a political decision and not a technical one. The antipathy between Trump and Sánchez is already known. But are frigates really needed, when are the destroyers with the best features?.Spanish frigates F-100 are known by this name because politically it sounds better to say frigate than destroyer, because in reality they are missile destroyers with Aegis system.
After the sinking of the Helge Ingstad, the fact that, after a slow sinking in shallow waters, practically nothing of the ship could be salvaged, and the Norvegian report that partly blamed the design (sections that had not been interested by the collision had been flooded anyway), none would have seriously considered a design based on the F100 any more. US Navy has a reputation for excellent damage control, capable to save the ship even with extensive damages. Moreover, the F100 is a smaller ship, with less space for helicopters, a noisier engine and more AAW oriented, to turn it into a ASW frigate (that's what the US Navy needed, not another destroyer) would have required a far more extensive redesign (and so more uncertain both for costs and results) than the FREMM (that already has a ASW variant).
Thank goodness it's a proven and better-armed design, compared to the Littoral Costly Speedboat (LCS).
@Prov Voqued
LCS is a corvette, Coast Guard cutters are frigates. LCS is better suited to use in anti-piracy, US Navy doesn't have small ships for quite a time so they always have to resorted to using destroyers.
@Prov Voqued they tried to give a few, the Coast Guard said hard pass
I like the LCS and it definitely has a role in the navy. Which there was only one design rather than two.
The US Navy Admiralty was hypnotize into buying the sales pitch of used car and snake oil salesmen concerning the Littoral Class of ships and Zumwalt Class Destroyers. Snake oil and car salesmen who NEVER kept the full promises of both weapon systems. Legally that is a breach of contract...but of course this is you know....normal operations in Defense Sales.
I wonder if the US Navy desires just one Iowa Class BB to be in operation?
Prov Voqued they’re the largest ships capable of handling in shallow waters, and are really effective against pirate tactics and even against larger boats with the new AS missiles.
Powerful defensive and offensive weapons on board, with above average good looking exterior, and hydro dynamic , good enough for me!
Finally some wise financial decision by the Navy. Large numbers of specialized and multirole frigates should be the doctrine in the China century
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
China my foot
@@subrajitdey3514 I believe USA military readiness Pacific Theater plan based upon Chinese threats.
I don't think this gentlemen was supporting China.
If you mean a "foot up" China's backside....I agree with you Xigza.
these are for your country you are not american who is american actually ? United States only knows war and killing civilians And today americans project is finished in middle east Now speaking russia and turkey Also pacific accept one country and its china firstly america fight with corona world is better without america
Lead to the Italian century!
Finally, going back to our roots with frigates! Nice looking ship
brilliant news, I was onboard with Finncanteri bid... proven ship with unique power generation from diesel electric ... and they have proven they can build ships, eg (LCS) ... complete bid from these folks will ensure they Navy gets exactly what it needs and pays for..
Fricantierry are the best frigate in the world this moment from italy
I think the F-100 design and the FREMM design are the two biggest contender (I am sure the navy doesn't have the stomach for another LCS variant...). And FREMM with its hybrid Electric propulsion system and being a ASW designed platform (where F-100 isn't... I heard "stories" that its noise signature isn't ideal for ASW work), probably is the major scoring point that pushed this design to win..... only insiders can tell us about this story later ....
I think the navy picked the right ship.
@@steamedcream7671 There most certainly is. The FREMM design is only going to be able to use 3 of the 4 SPY-6 antenna arrays it needs to allow for the full capability of the SPY-6, thus the FREMM radar capabilities will be somewhat degraded compared to what the F100's would have been, and the FREMM is going to need almost $800 million in new design work to redesign it to use American radars, combat systems, communications and weapons. Also because the FREMM was not designed for the SPY-6 radar, its going to lose all it's stealthy capabilities. The F100 was already designed to use the SPY series radar, it would have needed $200 - $300 million in redesign, and it already had space for the 4 antenna arrays baked into its stealthy design and it would not have had to use a non-stealthy mast like the FREMM will now have to use, in fact the FREMM mast is going to be a modified Burke mast. It was a terrible decision, the navy picked the 2nd best ship and Marinette Marine because they hate BIW CEO Dirk Lesko. That's what the decision came down too. As long as Dirk Lesko is at BIW the Navy is not going to give them anymore shipbuilding contracts, I mean, FFG(x) was right in BIW's power zone, think Arleigh Burke FFG's. This was almost as bad as the decision to build the LCS, and a serious mistake to give it to one of the shipyards that f--cked it up to begin with. Of course Lockheed is not part of the FFG(x) so the guys at Marinette will likely build a better ship than what Lockheed allowed them to build vis-a-vis LCS.
@@soulsphere9242 It has two sub hunting helo's, the ship itself does not have to be primed to be so quiet. It will be killing subs 20 to 50 miles from where the ship is located anyway. I don't think you quite understand how modern anti submarine warfare works. Most subs are first detected not by surface ships but by aircraft and/or the new mobile SOSUS system, surface ships and their sensors do not often make the first detection of enemy subs.
F100 is an old project, from a shipyard that lately collected many fatal accidents, especially on frigates and submarines...
@@jamesbrown5600 first of all, the FREMM is not a design of a ship, it was a joint Franco-Italian program to reduce costs, i.e. the French and Italian FREMMs are extremely different, don’t share the same design, don’t have the same hull, superstructure, electronics, armament and role.
Second, the F-100 has never been taken into account, first because it is an older not modular design based on the Burke, and because there wasn’t an international call for a bid. Only companies that already had shipyards and installations in the USA were approached (Austal, Fincantieri,..) that’s why neither Navantia, Naval Group or others were even approached.
Third, the design of the constellation class is a redesign just partly based on the Italian FREMM, and the Italian FREMM itself isn’t incompatible with the SPY-6. None of the companies approached had a on the shelf design to give the USN, everyone was either a redesign of an existent design, such as the constellation, or a completely new design.
Fourth, the mast is the same as the Burke and will be the same on every other ships. It is a USN requirement to put this mast on.
In my opinion US NAVY must adopt OTO MELARA 127 mm and Dardo Vulcano artillery on these ships, but they prefer a cheaper local solution
As an American, I like this design the most based off what we can see. Cant wait to see the first one.
@raiden z Wrong, F100 was by far the better ship as it was already designed for American weapons, sensors i.e. the SPY-6, and American comm systems . F100 would have needed $200-$300 million in design changes whereas the FREMM is going to need $800 million in redesign costs. Also the FREMM will no longer have stealth capabilites as it will lose its stealthy mast, whereas the F100 already had the 4 antenna arrays baked into it's design and thus would not lose any of its stealthy characteristics. So the FREMM is going to cost way more than F100 due to 3 to 4 times the redesign costs, and FREMM will not have any of its stealthy charasteristics whereas F100 would have retained its stealth properties and $500 to $600 million less in redesign costs. Please explain to me again how FREMM is the better ship? The only reason the Navy picked FREMM and Marinette is due to the fact that they hate with a passion BIW's CEO Dirk Lesko, as almost everyone does, he's a complete asshole and a terrible CEO. Anyone else could have been CEO at BIW and the Navy would have picked the F100 and BIW as the winner of FFG(x), but they will not be giving anymore shipbuilding contracts to BIW until Dirk Lesko is gone and a competent CEO is at the helm. One other tidbit, with $800 million in redesign costs and a minimum of $1 Billion just to build the first in class, the $1.39 Billion bid to build the first one is a joke, it's going to cost much closer to $2 Billion for the design and construction of the first FFG(x). You can mock me now but in 5 or 6 years you'll see how correct I am. I work in this business and have worked with the navy for 30 years, I know whereof I speak.
@@jamesbrown5600 you are a joke and the that shitty boat that sink so easy is even worse.
😉👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🇪🇺🇪🇦🤝🇮🇹 Me elegro por Italia es un buen contrato
Great frigate
Beautiful ship.
The Italian Fremm or Spanish F100 were both great, the USN would have made a good choice either way !!
Agreed, I would have gone the same way but wouldn't have been surprised in the slightest by the F100.
@@steamedcream7671 Yes they made a good choice. Semper Fi
The F100 is more AAW focused, while the US Navy needs an ASW frigate. It's redesign would have been more extensive than that of the FREMM, that already has a dedicated ASW variant.
Spoken just like someone that doesn't pay taxes in America? Am I getting warm?
@Legio XXI Rapax Has nothing to do with it, that was Norways fault don't listen to Fake News !!
Hope the best for the NAVY
Three LCS's in the water at Marinette Marine right now.
Finally some proper English on this channel👍
Seems like the design will be complimentary to the Arleigh Burkes. The destroyers have the heavier gun and a lot more VLS tubes, while the frigates have surface attack missiles and a 57mm that's better at anti-air and anti-missile fire then the 5 inch on the destroyer.
La ciencia y la tecnología es el futuro es el desarrollo es proteger a nuestra población del enemigo expansionista gue es el comunismo silencioso grasias Pedro x desde Miami
I always wondered why there were no CIWS alongside the RAM for point defense... so the main gun will be the CIWS with advanced guided munitions. That's pretty cool!
The reality is that USN was in need for a ship with more anti-submarine capabilities which the A.Burke lacked.
The FREMM will have a hull and towed sonar and 2 ASW helo's but also significant air-defence capabilities with 32 VLS for SM-2/ESSMs(has room for 16 more VLS) and especially ship to ship capabilities with 16 NSMs.
Especially the last part is important because I believe that was always a western disadvantage compare to Russia or China for example, the western lack of ship to ship firepower and capabilities. And western designs always were packing few anti-ship missiles which on top of that they were old designs, not enough to punch through modern ship defences.
And that's important because It doesn't matter if you have loads of cruise land attack missiles or anti-ballistic missiles or surface to air missiles in general in your arsenal(VLS) if you cant win a sea fight first against an opponent that has simliar or better capabilities in ship to ship fight then you cant properly use your ships for other tasks, the west used to fight countries in the last decades that have no navy capable to oppose them, but right now in our modern era things are dangerous even for the most capable navies and opponents arm themselves with modern anti-ship capabilities capable to deny you the use of your ships in significant zones of the world.
Also note in closed seas like Mediterranean or Baltic or Black Sea etc which are very hot zones at the moment, A.Burkes will have problems against diesel Subs especially if they have AIP system which makes them even more stealthy, in closed seas diesel Subs have significant advantage compare to a nuclear attack sub because they are much quieter, can stay still in the bottom running only in electric power and thus its easier for diesel subs to set a trap hiding in small pockets and if they have AIP they can stay weeks submerged.
So USN choosing FREMM makes more sense because it has significant better, way better ASW capabilities than A.Burke and also way better punch for surface warfare, its more suited for closed seas.
As a Greek, my government selected the newest Belh@rra design for the next frigate but personally I prefer the FREMM design because its more mature and well proved with 19 ships already in service, while the Belh@rra(FTI) is more of a risk, it has great capabilities on paper but its a very new design and as all new designs they have to go first through puberty.
So great choice for US navy, ironically Hellenic navy choose the FREMM design first but most likely due to political reasons, changed it to Belh@rra.
Ships were never the threat to western navies, it was subs and aircraft, anti ship weapons were backup.
@@davidhouseman4328
Ships were always a threat, even at the high of the cold war against the soviet navy, western ships had very little armament against other surface targets, while the soviet navy packed a huge arsenal of ship to ship missiles.
Sorry to say that but if in the 80s there was a shooting war between Soviet navy and US navy or even NATO, the soviets would have a significant advantage and I truly believe the kill ratio would have been in their favour.
The reality is yes after the collapse of USSR enemy navies were not much of a threat anymore and west didn't bother to keep developing more capabilities for surface warfare, until the hard reality in the last 10 years really hit us.
Many navies today possess destructive missiles either launching from ships, subs, airplanes or land batteries, very dangerous for modern navies, making many areas forbidden to ship safely.
@@vadrak6197 How were they targeting these missiles. The horizon is only a few dozen miles away. The edge of a carriers air wing is hundreds of miles away.
Carriers became dominant because they could see the enemy when the enemy couldn't see them, same as subs. Surface ships are just support.
@@davidhouseman4328
There were many methods to guide those missiles, ASW/ASuW airplanes which they can provided targeting over the horizon, also Helicopters have similar role, satellites can also be used, today its even easier with drones, better satellites and ASW/ASuW airplanes that have hundreds of km range of detection.
Especially the P-700 Granit anti-ship supersonic missile have a unique function, you can launch a volley, lets say 8 P-700 and one of them will pop up in higher altitude to provided guidance for the rest 7 via data link, if that missile was shot down, another one will pop up to resume that role, Soviets were not stupid for stacking large numbers of anti-ships missiles in their ships that had 3-4 times the range of western missiles if they didn't have any method to guide them so far.
Carriers today against a peer adversary are not dominant at all, in fact they are very vulnerable, with missiles like the P-800 Onyx(600km range), or the anti-ship variant of the Kalibr(3M-54T) that has greater range or even the newest hypersonic Zircon that has a 1000km range, or the air launched hypersonic Kinzhal with 2000km or even anti-ship ballistic missile Chinese DF-26 with more than 2000km, even the new American LRASM anti-ship missile which might not be a supersonic but still has 1000km range and has stealthy characteristics, those types of missiles will force the aircraft carriers to stay way out of their range basically taking them out of action, because fighters dont have so much range to cover the distance, jets like F-18 or even F-35 will have a combat radius 500-600km at best.
The most potent threat in the 80s against US battle groups were the Oscar II class subs of guided missiles, they were carrying 24 of those monstrous P-700 Granit, also their dedicated carrier destroyers bombers like the Tu-22M which could carry the Rh-15 or the huge Rh-22 antiship missile that had range of 600km and speed 4.5 Mach was great threat.
@@davidhouseman4328 the radar mast are quit high tho and it could be enough to just now the rough area the enemy is in based on enemy radar emissions for instance. And especially in the black sea or Caspian see where there is little room anyway.
this is a great frigate
Can the gun out range the enemy missiles? What happens if the main gun goes down, and how fast can the anti missile launchers reload?
The main gun is a 57mm versus the 100 mm and 76 mm on the Russia’s newest corvette and the PLAN type 56 corvette.
La fragata F100 tiene un cañon de 127mm.
@A A M Fragata F110
Wow, 7500 tons, that is more like a destroyer than a frigate.
In 1990 maybe but not in 2020, Destroyers being designed and built today are all 10,000t+, some Frigates are up around 8000t+.
@@Harldin Should we just call then the cruisers that they are at this point? Lol
Since the Navy brass totally botched the LCS choice, I'll just be happy that ANY frigates are coming. You just shake your head wondering where the Navy came up with the Admirals who made the incredibly wasteful decisions to proceed/select the LCS. When we were seeing videos (on TH-cam) promoting crew comfort as a main selling point of LCS, you knew we just wasted billions on junk.
The FFG (X) will be longer than my Adams class DDG!
FFG-62, the lead ship in the class is already behind schedule and over budget. Will this be the third surface combatant procurement disaster in a row???
2030?? We need these within the next 5 years
Zumwalt was / is a giant leap forward, but it failed as EVERYTHING experimental was crammed in it at the same time...
It was also designed for a job that wasn't needed.
@@davidhouseman4328 You guys need to understand why the Zumwalt's were built. They were built as research platforms for new technology, much like the reason the Seawolf submarines were built. Those are still the quitest subs ever built and they've now been specialized for the many intelligence gathering and spy missions for which subs are used. In due time you will see that the Zumwalt's are going to be technology super highways for the fleet and they'll be very effective spy platforms as they can do some really cool things that the general public, and hopefully our enemies and adversaries do not know about and likely will not know for 30 to 50 years untill the NDA's run out.
@@jamesbrown5600 will the us be keeping zumwalt from reports i saw it said they're upgrading them so us will be keeping both of these ships cool
Can anyone enlighten me why it doesn't have an enclosed integrated mast? I know in combat looks matter little but the design looks dated for a supposedly 2030's warship compared to other countries.
Because the USN wants to stick with this mast and demands that US ships have this mast.
That Austal design is superb. What it lacks is a forward VLS
No particle beam weapons?
Eventually. It is going to produce the power required for lasers.
The Italian 127mm gun that comes standard on the FREMM is probably a superior choice to be honest since it expands the engagement range and allows the ship to fight medium-range air-launched anti-ship missiles by going after the fighters rather than just shooting missiles as they come in. Having the 57mm is pretty superfluous given the power of the RAM. A RAM and a 127 would be a lot more effective then a 57mm and a RAM. I just feel like the 57mm is fighting a threat that doesn't exist given the Italian 127 mm that comes standard with the class would be perfectly adequate against attack craft and gives more than twice the standoff distance. 17,000 m for the 57 versus 30,000 for the 127mm. Plus the 127mm can fire volcano long range guided ammunition out to 100km. The price difference is only about $5 million per unit so would be well worth it. Additionally the FREMM has a lot of extra tonnage to carry the heavier weapons system so it wouldn't affect the stability of the ship.
I don't get the navy's love affair with the 57 mm. It's size makes it unusable against larger targets and given current-gen fast targeting systems the threat of small attack boats is pretty negligible to a ship armed with large caliber naval guns. I get that bigger isn't always better but within the next 20 years we will be seeing the end of complete naval dominance and fighting larger surface combatants will become a real possibility.
Conner Perkins - The Navy is using the 57mm here because it is already used on other small ships. It is more economical to have commonality than a gun unique to one ship type. The small caliber allows more ammunition to be carried on the ship. Advanced guided rounds under development will make up for the small caliber by putting more rounds on target. One would suffice for small boats.
The frigate is not expected to be in a fight with heavily armed and armored ships. The USN has plenty of large guns on destroyers and cruisers, and antiship missiles as well.
My guess is that these ships are going to replace the DDG's that are currently in Rota.
Can other country join this project or maybe buy the same frigate when its completed?
See-Saw - There are already versions of this ship which have been sold to other countries. The US model is customized to USN requirements. Other countries would specify their own configuration.
This ship is the result of a Franco-Italian design, the cost of redesign has to do with adapting it to service with the USN.
The 57mm gun is also supposed to be getting BAE's hyper velocity projectile(HVP) developed from the round their railgun uses. The round was already tested last year. With all the new ammunition the gun is supposed to get the 57mm will still be a potent threat.
To me it is a mini-Destroyer.
So a Frigate yes?
How about its torpedo tubes and anti sub warfare?
Why didn't the US navy consider the type 26? Do Australia, Britain and Canada have different requirements?
Because the US Navy had problems with LCS and Zumwalt and needed a proven platform that actually works and not another powerpoint presentation.
Australia, Britain and Canada considered the type 26 because they all are countries under the British Monarchy and as such have to privilege British industries. The US navy doesn’t have this requirement.
2:28-I was expecting the gun to be a 3"" OTO Melera and expecting the VLS to have 48-cells
It has reserve space for 16 additional VLS
@Mithra Risen I was kind of wondering about that myself, but from what I understand, the US Navy does not envision these ships being used for shore bombardment work, negating the need for a larger artillery piece. Also, larger surface warship would more practically be engaged with using anti-ship missiles.
At the same time, the Navy is concerned about the rising threat of small craft attacks, which would lend itself to a smaller caliber weapon, but with a higher fire rate. This is where the 57mm comes it. In a pinch, it can have the same cyclic fire rate as some machine guns, with a shell large enough annihilate a small attack craft. The Boefors model can also go AA in a snap, which makes it a viable, secondary point-defense weapon against missiles and aircraft.
DARPA and other contractors are preparing extraordinary munitions for the 57mm gun. Also it's not gonna be a hassle to keep enough oto melara 76 mm guns in storage
@Mithra Risen The priority now is defending against small boat swarm attacks and the 57mm has a higher rate of fire and can engage more targets more rapidly. Also the smaller 57mm rounds allow the ship to carry more reloads. It is similar to the reason the military shifted from the larger and more powerful 7.62mm infantry rifles to the smaller and lighter 5.56mm rifles. The faster firing gun has also been found to be more effective against low flying threats. Naval gunfire support is of lesser concern in the coming "near peer" conflicts. Its the same reason the Navy cancelled the Zumwalt destroyers which were focused on naval gunfire support mission. The main job of the frigates will be convoy escort and anti submarine duties. The will free up the heavier destroyers for front line combat. When the frigates are traveling with larger task forces it will form the outer ring for small boat defense. Also the frigate has secondary capabilities in the Anti air and anti-surface roles with its VLS and NSMs respectively.
Weapons specifications are subject to change. The important thing is they know it won't corrode into uselessness or break down constantly. A big plus is it's not aluminium.
who got the back handed?
🇪🇸🇮🇹🇺🇲
I miss the old Oliver hazard Perry class frigates but I'm excited to see the new frigate.
The aviation types won again with a third of the deck and superstructure going to aviation assets. Plus the forecastle and aft lime handling room is not covered like the Italian and French fremm’s. Italian fremm has either a 127mm and a 76mm. Or two 76mm’s guns.
That might have something to do with the fact that Helicopters are much better at hunting Submarines then Guns, SAMs and SSMs.
Italian's ship
... and French. It's true we are cousins though 🙂
@@chefchaudard3580 The winning design is based on the Italian variant of the FREMM
Italy knows how to build ships, U.S. made a good choice.
@@MrRazgriz winning or not freem is french to
@@lechardonrouge6172 nop since the FR and IT version just have 15% communality.
However the funny part is that the US modification makes them look more French then Italian ... (even if the fr variant is the smallest)
wonder if it will be Airbus tankers all over again
No because there is no US Frigate equivalent of the 767
Navy: New FFG(X)!
Me: YAY!
Navy: _In 2030_
Me: Surprised pikachu face
Good choice.
Hopefully there's no Chinese materials in the building of the ship.
NEVER, it is forbidden in Italy and in all Finantieri shipyards in the world
57mm gun is way too small. I would prefer 2 127mm or even 2 76mm. 127mm would be best for a ship of this size. Also are there ASW torpedoes on this ship?
Yes there are torpedoes. As for the fun and any other armament it is not the builder that chooses, it is the USN that chooses which and how much armament goes on.
I wonder why they went with the normal RAM launcher instead of SeaRAM. I guess they decided more missiles is a higher priority than a self-independent system with its own radar? At least on the old OHPs, they had a self-independent Phalanx CIWS.
Interesting that the design doesn't allow the main gun to shoot over the bow.
You buy F35 and i buy Italian FREMM good deal
Looks like an LCS that works properly
Poderiam por um canhão Oto Melara de 76 mm Super Rapid ao invés desse canhão Bofors de 57 mm fraco demais. Aumentaria o poder de fogo.
Las fragatas F100 llevan un cañon de 127mm .
Major Win
Why no CIWS?
CIWS is perfectly handled by 57 mm which can use air burst ammo and has longer firing range than old school systems like Phalanx. Also there are missile systems to shoot down incoming threats.
Tell me they didn't pay 6 figures for that model.
Hopefully the 57mm ammo will be ready by the time the first ship rolls off the line around 2026.
GICking - The 57 mm gun has been around for a long time. It is used on the LCS and on CG cutters.
Its literally a flight IIA arleigh burke but for like 300 million more
I just hope it isn't another aluminum hulled fair-weather vessel only, like the Perry class frigates, then the LCS's. Needs to be rugged, deadly, and able to serve for 40 years or more. I served on a Perry class; was a good boat, built in the 80's, and cashiered out by 2010. And they were not allowed in the Atlantic in heavy seas, because the aluminum hull would break. Then the even worse LCS debacle... In the meantime, carriers and battleships and destroyers serving everywhere for 40+ years.
But this FREMM frigate has a good record so far in other fleets, so hoping it will serve us well, and keep the seas free for all, wiping out pirates, keeping China in check, and drug runners in port.
🇲🇨🇲🇨🇲🇨
The Littoral combat ships would be a wise purchase for Ukraine.We will cut them a deal!
Ray a Stewart
Need some Corvettes now.
If the U.S. Navy want's more frigates in production due to sudden changes in defense actives and demands, will Fincantieri be able to issue licenses to manufacture FREMM copies to other U.S. ship builders? The Mark 45 gun should of been a more realistic choice for the South China Sea Freedom of Navigation Operations. Even then, Congress has to figure out where to base these brand new frigates that can sustain them, that means investing more on dry docks, ports, and naval bases on already crowded and expensive coast line real estate and cost of living. Merchant ships will also become vulnerable and escort services will be very unlikely if not restrictive. The POTUS would then need to fill in vacancies that are relevant to the potential flash point in the South China Sea.
Keel laying this month ? aug 2023
Oh Boy...another gun with a round not yet developed and how much it will cost or even work we don't know....
Yea and no cwis and only one other protection system facing the rear. Seems kinda bad. But then again they are waiting for direct energy weapons and it's only supposed to be in service 2030.
@@possiblyadickhead6653 57mm is the CIWS. Longer engagement ranges are needed for faster missiles. and 57mm class means you have room for guidance packages.
@@dwwolf4636 In the world of communist propaganda 57 become CIWS?
www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=487&ct=2
www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=456&ct=2
Now if '57mm is the CIWS? Why doesn't the ... United States Navy say that?
Brian Foley - The gun will fire existing 57 mm ammo.
Where are the torpedoes
For the MK41 cells, ASROC.
Constellation class frigate.
At 7500 tons it is slightly larger displacement than a WWII Atlanta Class CL I wouldn't call it a Frigate.
All frigates are essentially light cruisers by WW2 standards. The original term Frigate, as used by the French: referred to any independent ship smaller than a ship of the line I.e a Battleship.
@@rocketassistedgoat1079 i am aware of that. The original designation of the Leahy and Belnap Criosets was Frigate and was a deliberate reference to the Navy's first 6 Frigates. However, I don't think the Nsvy is reverting to that designation.
@@johnshepherd8687 If you're aware of it; then why your original comment? Frigate, today; is probably used for for political/economic reasons. It's a friendlier name and an easier sell to the public, than Destroyer. Especially as the U.S already has about 90! of those [which are really guided missile cruisers]. But you know that too, right?
@@rocketassistedgoat1079 Because my comment was an historical note. These ships are meant to fill the hole left by the retirement of the FFG-7 class of ASW escorts. They are too large and too expensive for that role.
@@johnshepherd8687 Well, my comment was also a historical note. All frigates today are essentially light cruisers by tonnage and also light cruisers by mission; commerce protection. Not that that's their only job.
But yes, agreed; the U.S just can't seem to help themselves: and want the best of everything-even if it defeats the original purpose of the design-cost effectiveness. The Fremms are huge, complex ships. I also think it's the wrong choice, for that reason; they have the Burkes for taking on large powerful surface combatants. During the 1930s, Britain needed a force of 60 cruisers to protect her worldwide trade. Obviously, they couldn't be the huge behemoths being built by Japan and the U.S-intended for fleet use. So the designs got smaller and smaller, 'till they settled on the 6 gun Aresthusas-as the 8 gun Leanders were deemed to be too expensive. Today; the Type 31 would fit the role of a modern Aresthusa. The expensive Type 26's are intended for fleet escort.
To be accurate FREMM is a Franco-italian program between the French naval group and Italian Fincantieri.
French made the wc and Italians put torpedoes insodr french women...
French collaborators are dying of envy, you are just miserable and jealous
@Legio XXI Rapax French started the project in 2000, Italian came into the project in 2002, truly started in 2004 , nearly stopped in 2006 because Italy was not able to bring the necessary fund, nor adapt the technology to their own Fremm version. Italian had to work with american companies to transfer technology to develop their version. Result Italy slow down the French project.
Wait to be an adult and to have been in the army to talk !
@@Benito-Musolesi French started the project in 2000, Italian came into the project in 2002, truly started in 2004 , nearly stopped in 2006 because Italy was not able to bring the necessary fund, nor adapt the technology to their own Fremm version. Italian had to work with american companies to transfer technology to develop their version. Result Italy slow down the French project.
Wait to be an adult and to have been in the army to talk !
@@ganikus8565 french are not able to build a ship...
Take a look at de gaulle carrier was so bad project and built that has lost the propellers the first day on see and must go arround for years with the small propellers keep from the scraped clemceau
Was to short for airplanes and must be reworked, always on harbour for problems and full rusted due bad material used.
The same president Giscard de estain named it the half carrier.
The name is the same but are 2 different type of ships arrond 300 tons of wheight.
Fincantieri was selected by US Navy. Fincantieri has a large number of companies in USA
We ars 3000 years are building ships, when we were already ROMA french still live over trees and caves and have not the scripture.
Potable eater is arrived only in 1976 on france and still din't use soap...
7500 tons and naming it as a frigate!!
The first of these is supposed to be ready in 2026. At the rate things are going in the world, we may want to have Fincantieri put a 2nd & 3rd shift on at the shipyard.
When Americans build navy ships they never compromise. love it.
@@t.t6 they do ... they already changed to design and they will build them in the US.
@@jeanvaljean9293no Is wrong Is an italian design made in a italian shipyard
It will be built in the US, but the design of the ship and the owner of the shipyard are Italian (well Fanco-Italian design)
Is one gun not an enormous single point of failure or are these guns extremely reliable? Is it fast enough when the ship is attacked from four angles? I don’t know anything about ships and guns so this is a genuine question and not a disguised comment.
The gun is somewhat of your backup weapon, Missiles are your primary.
Also swarms shouldn't be coming from multiple directions. That would be a failure of your situational awareness rather than weapons.
Even if extremely reliable, a single gun can be damaged and, if not placed on the mast, it will have a quite large blind spot. It seems quite strange to rely, for air and surface close protection, on a weapon that doesn't work it the threat comes from the stern. Italian FREMM frigates, have two 76mm, or a 127mm and a 76mm. marinecue.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/FREMMf.bmp
For close in they use CWIS, crew served, and the 57mm ammo is more of a arial exploration that rains down ball-bearings like a claymore
U.S. Navy needs cruisers too.
Brian Cooper - They have cruisers and a lot of destroyers.
There they go again throwing money away , you have to ask the question is America serious about defense ?
The baseline model of this frigate is 250 million dollars but with American spec 795 million dollars .
And I guarantee you one thing , when it is completed in a few short years it will need a major upgrade costing 500 million dollars .
You get what you pay for. The baseline FREMM is priced using European sensors, weapons and comm systems. American stuff is much more expensive because they're so much better and more reliable and the American FREMM is going to have many capabilities that the Euro FREMM's don't have, our ships need to do more stuff, that's partly why they're more expensive. Also, our sailors, airmen, soldiers and marines deserve the very best equipment, vehicles, weapons, sensors and comm gear that money can buy, after all, it's their lives, not yours, that depend upon that being the case.
The base model of this frigate is 600 million Euros. 684 million dollars. Double the cells, slightly lenghten the hull and build it in a shipyard in Wisconsin that had never assembled one, and the costs will rise to 795 million dollars.
I think about 90 more of these should be built...
At 20-30 of them you are inefffect getting extra Burkes as they can fill in less where the extra fire power isn't needed.
Going for 90 over extra Burkes and you start reducing your firepower. They have a 1/3 the cells but over half the cost.
it's a first order, other are going to come soon
Why not the Type 26, would have worked well with 3 closest allies.....UK, Australia and Canada and it's a hell of a frigate.
they are allies but UK got a deal a with huawei they dont listen to US anymore.. i think US does not trust UK that as much right now and australia only depends on china..
Not a single one operative yet, so much more uncertainty about delivery time, real costs and teething problems.
The competition only considered designs in service. The type 26 would also have been too expensive.
@@Getgood1980 we listen to the US, we don't blindly follow them.
Its like a mini-DDG51 but better. Lol
😁👍🏆
It literally look the same design and firepower of the new 2 philippines frigates, don't you have any other design?
Don't compared our neutered ship to the high-end FREMM
@@steamedcream7671 yeah more capable getting destroyed because they have a lot of bombs inside it and it once hit those bombs inside it by the torpedoes, it will blow like a mushroom cloud and sink to the bottom of the ocean. do not beef with me, I'm just saying a fact
@@harveyblanquisco6738 I'm not comparing your ship. I'm just saying it looks the same and missile systems as our ship.
I want to remove many technical doubts for those who write below, read and use the web translator:www.aresdifesa.it/2020/05/03/ecco-come-saranno-le-fremm-per-la-us-navy-armamento-e-sensori/
Fun fact :
« FREMM » is a french acronym for « FRégate Multi Missions », which means « multirole frigate ».
FYI Fremm is 50% French and 50% Italian design. It stands for "Fregate Europeenne Multi Mission" in French or "Fregata Europea Multi-Missione" in Italian
Please learn how to read. The shipbuilder is Marinette not Marionette. That’s pronounced Mare eh net. 3 syllables not 4.
If it's an aluminum hull, throw away.
Navy needs a real gun, 57mm pop gun is sad!
Its perfect for popping jihadi speed boats, anything bigger you would use the Naval Strike Missile.
th-cam.com/video/rldn9Hvzih4/w-d-xo.html
Mark Paintner - A frigate operates in a lower threat environment than destroyers and cruisers. The 57 mm gun is the same used on Coast Guard cutters. The ammunition for a larger gun is more expensive and takes up more space. This gun will do the job.
indonesia 6 FREMM
Do that mean that US shipbuilders are incapable to produce new fregate by themselves?
They can, in ten years, while an equivalent design is ready today.
Also it's ship designers. US ship builders are building this.
Fincantieri bought in 2009 an U.S.A. shipbuilders in Wisconsin.
It is now named Fincantieri Marinette Marine.
Filip Borin - It means only that this was the design the USN preferred.
👍
惊现轰六，零五二吸，哈哈哈
?
good😂😂😂 with 16 vls?
32
32 cells with options to fit more, and also some cells will be able to dual/quad pack missiles
Check the Chinese 054 now who is copying
Ok you copy 100 weapons and say nothing 🤣
The lack of a CIWS is a serious weakness. They've got all their eggs banked on that new 57mm round being infallible.
The 57mm IS CIWS. Also, someone like you doubtless made the same comment when replacing MGs on fighters with cannon during WW2. The British and Germans did it yrs before the Americans. "But, but it's NEW".
It has 21 shots RAM as CIWS
I've heard a few reports saying that the FREMM may go over the navy's cost cap by quite a significant amount. Personally, I preferred the Navantia proposal - seemed more developed and robust, with or without the full Aegis. But I guess the smaller hull had less potential for power and electric production?
The FREEM, are in service with 4 Navies Worldwide, while the Navantia Design is only in operation with Spain and Norway, and rumour has it that the Norwegian frigate sinking after a collision was part of the reason the U.S. navy chose FREEM, also the Italian Frigate Alpino spent an entire deployment cycle on the US east coast and Navy leadership were impressed with her performance.
As of right now the FREEM is probably one of the best frigate classes in service worldwide, and in all honesty they are pocket destroyers with only the number of VLS cells hampering them in that role.
@@marcofava Australia also uses the F100 design for their air warfare destroyers.
I think they have a big margin with the government supplied equipment side. But given it's doing virtually everything a Burke does but with less cells it can reach 2/3 the cost and be good value.
@@davidhouseman4328 Hm, that would make sense then. Though I'm wondering if the U.S. navy is really aiming for a diverse mix of ship capabilities. The FFFGX program is still giving the navy 20 units of a ship that would be the high-tech, high-end pride of other navies.
I read an article recently saying that the U.S. should start to consider even smaller and truly cheap types of ships - OPV's and Corvettes with decent offensive capabilities; similar to what Russia, and most of Asia is moving towards.
@@potatopants4691 It may be viable for Russia as they work close to home with the support that gives. Doesn't seem to fit the US's expeditionary nature.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍📣📣📣👍👍👍
only 32 vls!
It doesn't need as many VLS because it's a Frigate, not a Destroyer or Cruiser.
@@setantii298 Every other navy would describe a 7500 tons, 500 feet long ship as a destroyer but 32 is still sufficient for it. 48 or 64 would've been better but seeing how they're trying to keep the price low it's enough and they will probably make sure the Navy can upgrade to more cells in the future
Bear in mind that depending on missiles and loadout some cells can be multi packed
Only 32? That likely 56 missiles with 8 cells quad packed. Plus the 16 anti ship canisters. Plus the RAM.
32 is enough, won’t be carrying SM-3, or Tomahawk and its primary role will not be AAW,, its ASW so doesn’t need 96 cells, the ability to carry 2 MH-60R, where Burkes can only carry one is more important, it also has 2 Sea RAM CIWS Missile systems for self defence, the Burke doesn’t use Sea RAM.
A probable Missile loud out of
8-16 SM-2
36-64 ESSM
8 VL ASROC
16 NSM
42 Sea RAM
will give it plenty of punch
Dapat ganyan bilhin ntin mas malakas pa yata to kaisa galing korea
Mas malakas pa ito kaysa don sa bago nating bili na frigates galing south korea. With it's displacement of 7,500 tons parang destroyer na yung category nya.
if we aren't gonna use the LCS ships, we need to sell them to Israel
Now we need those in case we need to carry out amphibious invasions.
@@anarchyandempires5452 right but their development is slow. if both countries could work together on it,
development, production, and upgrades would be easier and faster.
@@jeffgeller2576 as close an allies as Israel and the US are we are both still separate Nations with no binding treaties, the LCS ship may have been relative failures but they are still loaded up with a lot of bleeding edge US military technology, we can't be so reckless when it comes to our secrets.
The Navantia-General Dynamics option were better. It was a political decision and not a technical one. The antipathy between Trump and Sánchez is already known. But are frigates really needed, when are the destroyers with the best features?.Spanish frigates F-100 are known by this name because politically it sounds better to say frigate than destroyer, because in reality they are missile destroyers with Aegis system.
After the sinking of the Helge Ingstad, the fact that, after a slow sinking in shallow waters, practically nothing of the ship could be salvaged, and the Norvegian report that partly blamed the design (sections that had not been interested by the collision had been flooded anyway), none would have seriously considered a design based on the F100 any more. US Navy has a reputation for excellent damage control, capable to save the ship even with extensive damages.
Moreover, the F100 is a smaller ship, with less space for helicopters, a noisier engine and more AAW oriented, to turn it into a ASW frigate (that's what the US Navy needed, not another destroyer) would have required a far more extensive redesign (and so more uncertain both for costs and results) than the FREMM (that already has a ASW variant).