Yeah, but if the Navy actually wanted effective combat ships we wouldn't have the LCS classes and the Zumwalts. Pork and lobbying is going to win this, not capability.
The Spanish frigate in service with Spain and Australia is highly thought of by those respective navies. Bath Iron Works has a great history of ship building. Good combination and likely winner.
I like the FREMM and Spain/Australia hull too. I do want to say these ships are really heavy (like 6000 tons). Forget about speed. Anyway, either of the LCS hulls should not be built due to the propulsion system and the shallow draft. The coast guard cutter hull looks like a viable option too. These frigates are being built to be a poor man's destroyer. The Navy is requesting 20 hulls and the most that can be built is 2 per year. Looks like some building will be done in another country in order to get all 20 hulls done in under ten years. Twenty hulls $20 billion. Get out the Visa.
It would be cool If the US picked the F-100 hull. And Canada picked the F-100 for the CAC. And Australia picked the F-100 hull with the sea 5000... Only time will tell..
The reason I think it will be the F100 hull is because the ship already incorporates the Aegis system. The FREMM does not. I think that makes the F100 an easy transition to the American fleet. US Navy should have been building these all along instead of those LCS boats.
This is a really good idea to reintroduce a frigate into the US Navy. A smaller, cheaper ship that can still perform escort missions, and operate independently while be half the cost of a destroyer.
Sierra Vortec yes, I’m just hoping that the us can get s replacement for the harpoon soon. But, at least the new frigates will have anti ship missiles.
datboi knows best yes definitely. They are lagging behind the Russians and Chinese in that sense and the definitely realize that now. Short term they are introducing an anti-ship version of the Tomahawk and SM6 missiles I believe
the classification of frigate is merely a political way of saying something isnt gonna be that expensive to the public but wot ends up happening is the navy wants the capabilities of a destroyer in a frigate. Thus u have the whole type 26 global combat ship for the royal navy, classed as a frigate, same tonnage and capability as a destroyer, the government wanted frigates, the royal navy wanted destroyers. Its just a stupid loop. The USN will be the same and end up going for a simular solution to what the royal navy wanted but wont be able to afford as many as they would like.
@Majime The mains weapons system is AEGIS and effectively deployed on a 6000T displacement vessel when it was originally designed for 9000T +. Successful deployments include 5 in Spains Armada, 5 in Norwegian Navy (modified for the on same base) and 1st of three in Australian Navy (although they call them destroyers). 29+ Its and 5000 mile range at that speed. Active service experience etc. I'd say she's probably the best candidate.
F100 is a fine ship. 3 Hobarts are in the water now, 1 is in service, another was just commissioned in October, the 3rd is finishing fit-out and doing trials. Hobarts are built to aussie spec which puts them in a capabilities class of their own, and its a bigger yot than an F100 (designate F105).
@@user_mac0153 It's actually the same ship built top the same spec by the same company but in Australia. The variations are electrical and some electronics but the hull, performance, etc is the same. A great piece of kit.
Fincantieri looks great! Th General Dynamics ship looks like the child of the FFG7. I Like it as it was my former home. The Navy DOES NOT want a modified Coasty Cutter.
While the small size may seem a problem, they're fast firing, have some pretty potent new types of ammunition, and can stow more rounds per gun than the larger, heavier weapons. While I can *definitely* see the advantage in having a little more bang for your gun, the place where having it would be most advantageous would be in taking out hard vehicles (tanks) in support of ground forces; a role that can be handled (perhaps) more easily by HellFire armed Fire Scout unmanned helicopters. By contrast, I think what proponents of the smaller 57 mm gun are concerned about are the potential for a swarm of Boghammar small, fast attack boats. Against these, the 57 mm firing either the proven 3P ammunition (on timed mode to airburst over the targets, showering them with deadly fragments) or the newer ORKA rounds would enable the gun to engage the incoming threat at three times the kill speed. While you may disagree (and that's cool; it's the hallmark of freedom for people to disagree), IMO, the 57 mm is plenty good. (BTW: I only know about those two fancy types of ammo from other TH-cam videos. You might be interested in them. A search on Bofors 57 mm 3P ammunition ought to take you to the first one, and the videos from it should take you straight to the ORKA, if you're interested.)
The secondary ship armament, which I would think be at least something like a rapid firing 30MM canon could handle small craft at a medium distance and the 76MM at a longer range and then even closer would be deck mounted .50 caliber machine guns for whatever is left that might be still alive.
Reasonable, Abner, but I have to respectfully disagree. The 57 mm. can handle pretty much 98% of what's out there all by itself, as opposed to needing to put two separate weapons (the 30 mm and 76 mm you brought up), with the attending need for crew to man them as well as the time and effort needed to maintain two separate weapon systems, as opposed to just one. However, both of us agree with Naval SOP to have the deck mounted .50's to handle swimmers, floating mines, and other point-defense hazards.
USA know very well the F100 and how good it is as it is usual that one of this frigates sails with USA aircraft carriers. Also no integration problem as all this job is already done.
The issue is the VLS cells. The new requirements state that it must have 32 while the cutter frigate only has 16 in the super structure. They could add another cluster of 16 somewhere else but there's no more room to add them into the superstructure. That being said it is my personal favorite design. Its exceptionally long range is particularly attractive.
@@Bibitybopitybacon I know it's not just as simple as what I'm about to say but it would only take adding 10-20ft in the area they need more space to fit the VLS. The NSC is one fine cutter
@@ah64dbeast37 That would work I'm sure. The Italians got the contract sadly. I'm not convinced they even really tried pushing the cutter. Their shipyard is booked up as it is.
In the end there will be a winner, (in my opinion it should be the proposal of BIW + Navantia) but if something is clear in the photo is that the candidate that better and faster would complement the rest of the fleet is the design of Navantia properly adapted to the specific requirements. If you do not look at that link that I put, on the right ... Who gives more? www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/north_america/usa/exhibition/SNA_2018/SNA_2018_top_banner.jpg
A huge mistake to have eliminated the British designed Type 26. The Aussies just chose the Type 26 over the F100 and the FREMM. Canada is likely to follow suit, which will bring the total to 32 Type 26 ships in service. In other words, 3 of the 5 Eyes will have the Type 26. Imagine the advantages in commonality of systems and ease of maintenance around the world if we joined in with 20 more. Not to mention that the Type 26 will be the most modern and advanced ASW platform in the world.
Not true, Aussies have F100 already, what they have choose is type26 instead of F110 (that is focused in war against submarines) what it is not clear at all is if it is because F110 design is not yet finished or becaused Commonwealth have make a lot of pressure because type26 ar most repairing because of continuous problems.
Even Leonardo. The new ship destroyers(PPX) will take the place of the class durand de la penne, will be an enlarged version of the frigates PPA with stealth capacity very thrusts and will have a dual band boosted new anti-ship missiles supersonic jets (development), a dual band more powerful radar he same missiles aster block 1nt of the fremm freda french, plus the camm-er
I would like to see something that is bigger than the Perry-class, with two shafts instead of one, have a 32 or 48-cell VLS firing SM2, ESSM, and VLAsroc. Plus, it will have phased array radars, medium frequency sonar along with a towed array. The gun should be an OTO-Melara 3"/76 gun with a CIWS. Also, it cannot be a foreign design or a variation of the LCS. I'm looking at the F100 frigate used by the Spanish & Austrailian Navies, I may have hopes for the Huntington-Ingalls patrol frigate model. And I'll add UK's Type26 frigate.
I just think it's phenomenal that the federal government is actually putting these contracts out for bid now. Over the past 30 or so years we've been paying companies to come up with the design and build two or three copies.
Fascinating how even the US is now joining the trend toward international designs for naval craft. Here there were companies and designs from Australia, Spain, Italy and the US. Also fascinating how there is Australian involvement in two of the projects - The Austal design is the most radical design there based on Australian aluminum multi-hull technology, and the Navantia design, which was eventually selected by the US was developed by the Australians into Air Warfare Destroyers. A very capable design. I see they also use the Australian Nulka decoy system which is now used by Australia, Canada, and the US. Interesting that the Spanish design was able to beat out the American design. Even defense is becoming a global affair.
FFGX will certainly require command and control platforms .. so the sailors on the ship can confidentially control the airspace surrounding the ship ...
Lockheed Martin definitely stands out the most to me , but wht do we expect coming from this major player in the game today of course it's also a u.s defense company . But alot of other very sweet designs as well !
I would like to see the U.S. Navy build adopt Great Britain's Type 26 frigate (a.k.a. City-class frigate). It is a terrific warship.
6 ปีที่แล้ว +1
Type 26 a very complete vessel, small with great capacities, the Navantia one also very good (and proven), pure American, the Lockheed Martin one, The LCS, not to consider seriously: Launchers next to helicopter ops deck??? hahahaha
I liker the FREEM by France/Italy or the slightly more capable F100 from Spain. We cannot allow US manufacturers to dictate another fiasco like the LCS or DDG1000 ships plus the European ships are plainly better built and more reliable.
Joe Dickson su principal objetivo sería proteger a portaaviones verdad ? Da igual el sigilo si acompaña a un portaaviones detectable en cualquier circunstancia Your main objective would be to protect aircraft carriers right? It does not matter if there is stealth accompanied by an aircraft carrier that can be detected under any circumstance
Joe the new design hull is stealth and more so with the F-5000 and SCAC frigates as there more made for ASW... And they can still do it with gas diesel engine, all so good for distance....
OK---; I have been in love with the Tri-hull since i first laid eyes on it in spite of all its faults, the biggest one in my book is the 57mm Mk 101 gun. And I have tried to talk myself into supporting the new FFG Tri-hull in spite of the gun and the fact it only carries 16 Mk 41 launch cells. I have finally grudgingly accepted that the Bath Iron works ship is actually the best of the bunch for the FFG job. the Bath ship not only has a more capable longer ranged 5 inch gun as well as double the Mk 41 missile launchers while being larger enough to mount additional weapons. The only thing the ship needs is a different propulsion system. Namely an Electric drive from the Zumwalt DD-1000 that the Bath people are well familiar with and should be easy to upgrade the ship with, to provide power for the new laser systems being developed and are about to be deployed.
The updated requirements for the (ffx) include a minimum of 32 MK 41 cells and enough extra power for a 150kw solid state laser. All of the shipyards are modifying their designs to match. So the Independence class Frigate final design will have all of those features.
You need to remember that each VLS cell would hold 4 ESSMs, which would give the ship a maximum of 64 SAMs. As it is, it is highly unlikely that those VLS cells will carry anything else, including VL-ASROC.
But the EASR radar on the Frigate is even more capable than the SPY-1 radar onboard the Ticos and Burkes. It will be a waste if you only carry ESSMs that have a range of 50km. EASR is fully compatible with SM-6s and also SM-2 Block IIICs. EASR even has a limited Terminal Ballistic missile defense capability. Adding 16 more VLS cells means that the figate can carry 64 ESSMs as well as 16 SM-6 or SM-2 Block IIIC As for ASuW, the Navy has already chosen the Norwegian Naval Strike missile as its anti ship missile
I was hoping Canada went with the F-100. It’s proven, and could be built almost immediately. But, we’re stuck with the type 26, yes it may turn out ok, but we have to wait another 5 years before the first is in service, and close to 20 for the entire fleet, whereas the U.S would have them in 10 or less.
@@soulsphere9242 I think if you look at the British model it makes a LOT of sense moving forward... you have the Type 45 (similar to an Arleigh Burke in size/armament) for heavy lifting, the Type 26 (basically an FFGX type of ship) which is an extremely capable ASW platform, but also a very powerful general duties frigate and a carrier escort... then you have a fleet of smaller/cheaper vessels like their Type 31e which is perfect for all the anti-piracy/anti-smuggling/anti-drug/counter-terrorism operations where sending a billion dollar air-defense destroyer is just a huge waste of money and a liability. All those ships really need is a small 16 to 24-cell air-defense VLS battery , a main gun for intimidation, maybe a pair of quad anti-ship missiles for standoff and a flexible mission space (including a hangar) that can be customised to suit its current objectives. THe independence class LCS was meant to be like a type 31e but wheras the Type 31e costs about $250million, the LCS costs $750 million! I think the British have got it right; if you're going to go small and cheap go small and cheap. If you're going to go big then go big. The problem with FREMM and the F100 is they are already old designs and they're in an uncomfortable middle ground where they aren't much cheaper than an Arleigh Burke but they are nowhere near as capable.
I knew the Italian Fremm will win. The US had worked with them before, they have a ship building yard in the US, cost wise cheaper and last but not less, the system Compatibility
Yes fincantieri will renown the military ship building yard with a new totaly design to build navy and move them very easy. this is one of the reason US chosed to go with the italian FREMM. it will have 100% american tech on it.
I'd go with the General Dynamics Frigate, it's an evolution of OHP Frigates, it's a proven design and does exactly what it needs to do. The LMT ship is a little too over the top and we give them more than enough projects. The LCS based frigate is a no period. No we won't use modified puddle pirate boats in the Navy so fuck that. The rest are too costly. Former MT2 (ss) USN
@@Phoenix37csp They killed it because the navy couldn't decide what kind of role they would be useful for aside from land attack. Essentially they decided to build a only 3 to have them as test beds but since only funding for 3 was provided when 30 were originally proposed the cost of the guided ammo their guns fired ballooned to over $800000 per round and then funding was cut for the ammo as well leaving the zumwalts main guns without any ammo.
Why don't America just built their own frigates just like the Berkeley class but a smaller version then you can keep all your secrets I don't understand?
The F-100 is basically that. Take a Perry class frigate and a Burk class destroyer give em some vodka and a hotel room and 9 months later you get that oddly Spanish bastard.
OK---- I am glad to see that the Ausy Bath Iron works ship seams to be the favorite ship in the comments section even though it will not do 45 knots. To bad the Tri hull people won't get their heads out of their asses and upgrade their LCS ship the way it should be. LOL.
The Bath frigate’s layout is a little concerning. It looks as though all of its anti surface and anti air is located on the fo’c’sle. I’d feel better in the Austrel; if only because it would be safer from a lucky shot.
I like the LockHeed Offering, It's wonderfully Powerful and the inclusion of a Laser Defense System Tickles my fancy, I would however suggest they retrofit the firepower of the main cannon back to a 5 Inch Gun or even upgrade it to the automatic 125 MM Naval cannon consept they presented back in the Late 70's, I understand Why they lowered the fire power (The main cannon will be used as part of the missile defense net and as a close up anti-aircraft weapon) and while I agree that that's probably both the most pragmatic and the correct choice (Given the rigors of modern war) however I still feel taking away. A ships ability to engage in ship to ship combat after it's limited missile compliment has been exhausted may be a serious mistake (Or at least a liability) Should this ships ever be called to fight against a proper naval adversary.
Mk 110 Bofors has a high rate of fire and is more capable at taking out small boats. We already have cruisers and destroyers with 5 inch guns. The OHP had a 76 mil and did just fine.
The updated requirements for the ffx program include power for installation of a 150kw laser. So regardless of the ship they pick it will have a laser eventually.
Why do almost none of the ships have a CWIS? They definately need at least one given they barely have enough missile tubes to defend themselves not to mention other ships.
Violent Kisses; First of all, that I saw in the video and to my knowledge, at least 3 of the candidates include at least one CIWS assembly, either the latest versions of the Vulcan Phalanx, the Sea RAM, or the Millenium Gun. In the Navantia / B.I.W model. It does not appear on the model because this is a reproduction of the F-105 of the Spanish Navy, which for various reasons does not usually mount them on their ships; but the Australian AWD destroyers of the Hobart class (which are an evolution of this) if they ride them. Apart from that in that particular case (and in some of the other candidates as well) the ESSM missiles of the VLS MK-41 launcher have a very high anti-missile capacity very reliable and demonstrated in multiple exercises with real fire coming to be the case of neutralization of missiles by direct impact. Even the Standart SM-2 / ER missiles also have some capacity. Anyway, The current trend of the US Navy is to relegate its 20mm CIWS to non-AEGIS ships, that is, ships that do not have the binomial formed by the AEGIS combat system and the Spy-1D radar) leaving the anti-missile defense of these in the hands of Hardkill systems such as the ESSM and Softkill as electronic countermeasures ... and from the first American destroyer A.Burke delivered to the US Navy with ESSM (DDG-85 USS McCampbell) they even do it without the anti-missile system RAM. The evolution of the latest high-speed anti-ship rockets threatens to make most CIWS systems useless (except for the latest version of SeaRAM) given the very small amount of time they would have to react and face the threat.
So the Navy is supposedly willing to pay $950 million per forget for 20 frigates I think the type 45 could be gotten for that amount if we committed to all 20.
ohredhk if they fix the problem by simply switching to an American engine that powers the Burkes that would fix all the problems. Plus we can say that it's a joint venture between us in the British and make it an easier political get.
A little under a billion dollars would not be too expensive for the type 45 they cost a billion pounds when the British built them for themselves. However they only Built 6. If we committed to 20 I think we could easily get it for 950 million a piece. As far as the US never buying anything but an American ship you may be right about that but but I think buying a good ship from one of our allies would be a healthy thing for our industry in America to see that they're not guaranteed these contracts they have to work for them and bring costs down.
MattCellaneous you are right it would work but with all the vested interests Congress would never agree. I am British and get the impression that everyone in congress is out to get the best deal for his/her own state regardless of what is best for the nation as a whole.
These frigates are for most countries to patrol their seas. USA will build their own destroyers. What use are frigates for USA when they need larger more equipped destroyers since deployed world wide with various carriers?
Go the german design a very modern and multipurpose design. Currently in service with room for expansion and the right capabilities with stealth built in.
French Frégates de taille intermédiaire (BELH@RRA), compact FREMM, but still multi purpose. Which means it is capable of fleet sentry frigate or single patrol. 4250 ton, similar to Perry/ Knox class; 110+15 crews; both refers to low operation cost!
The Original FREMM design should have been adopted and now the navy have chosen the FREMM that doesn't look or have the bang like the original ones used by Italians and French navy... F**k it even looks like the outdated Oliver perry class Frigate
yes, but they have to modify F-100's upper structure. The Navy wants EASR radar which has 3 faces. Current F-100 was intended to accommodate a 4 faced radar
beer baron - Ian Farr-Wharton The class F100 is not a frigate but a destroyer, equal to class horizon Franco- italian, type45, ddg51 burke. and then the fremm is offered with radar Raytheon and 32 cells, ps 42 cells does not exist because each canister contains 8 cells
The heavy frigates do not exist, the adjective heavy was in use in the second world war, the number of cells not qualifying destroyer or frigate, but what is more serious that you do not know is that the frigate derived from Perry is called class Santa Maria, the F100 are a subclass of ddg 51, then a destroyer. ps, I pray thee, before me informed well
...sorry, but if our country would buy guided missile frigates, I wish it would be from FREMM or Navantia... however, the presentor from Ingals makes me think twice...
Well done the US Navy - they excluded the most advanced and capable Frigate design the Type 26 from the UK in build for the Royal Navy. the Aussies just bought the Type 26 and the Canadians will now follow. So when you need a capable ASW Frigate give the Royal Navy, the Royal Australian Navy or the Royal Canadian Navy a call. You're welcome
As an American, I thank you for the offer. If I was in politics, I'd sure be putting up a nice argument for at least a few of those vessels. If not from Britain itself, then an American-built one. From what I've read, the T26 is shaping up to be quite capable.
POZ - The Aussies are building theirs in Australia, the Canadians would build theirs in Canada and we all know the US would do the same as this competition is structured for that. The Type 26 is already capable of multiple system integration (AEGIS and LM Combat Systems are going into the Aussie boats) but the US Navy have insisted on only considering old designs with fixed systems. It seems like they wanted anything except the British design. And yet it is happy to invest in advanced naval technology at home (Zumwalt and LCS) So what I don't understand is that the US Navy is buying an ASW Frigate (a vessel they haven't actually had before) and are excluding the latest technology and design.
@@1chish The navy is not considering the type 26 because it isn't proven. Hell there isn't even one floating. The navy has spend billions on the LCS and Zumwalt with little to show for it. They are wary of a new design because of that. But lets not forget, this is only an order of 20 ships. Thad doesn't even come close to replacing the ships retired and they want 350 ship navy. I'm sure another order of frigates will happen. Its entirely possible some version of the type 26, or something based on it will be adopted eventually.
One can never know what the DOD/Navy will decide upon for its front-line frigate. Whatever gets built should be as strong, durable and flexible as can be made, given the rising costs of defense spending. These ships will be expected to last about 25 years with normal rotations into port for repairs and upgrades. They will likely be more automated, reducing the crew requirements. The Danish Navy has built its Iver Huitfeldt class Frigates with workable, proven designs and the U.S. Navy should be willing to consider how they made cost and time savings to re-use proven designs vs. inventing something entirely new. Whether it is out of pride or a ‘buy American’ requirement, the U.S. Navy should incorporate some of the designs used by the Danish Navy to save costs.
Too much emphasis is placed on anti-air. It's 2018 and these knuckle heads are still wanting to use canister launched harpoons? You would think that the Navy would expect more for an Anti-surface platform. They can't even make anti-ship missiles from a VLS platform? I honestly don't see why Navy retired the OPs when all they could have done was upgrade the radar and EW systems.....this is wasteful.
Unfortunately it isn't that easy to upgrade the Perry class. The VLS that they use are completely obsolete and arent compatible with modern missiles. They would have to rip out the VLS and add modern cells MK 41 cells. They would also need to replace the power plant so it could have enough power generation to supply the the more modern radar systems. They would probably need to replace all the electronics also. After a refit that extensive it would still be cheaper then buying new ones, but congressmen need to keep those shipyards open in their districts. And you're right, the lack of a US longrange antiship missile is ridiculous.
Yeah. The FFX entries are basically a debugged version of of the LCS ships. They can still operate in Littorial waters, but can handle themselves in the open seas too.
Bath Iron Works. Used by Australia and Spain. Its a miniature Arleigh Burke. Im placing my bets on that.
Yeah, but if the Navy actually wanted effective combat ships we wouldn't have the LCS classes and the Zumwalts. Pork and lobbying is going to win this, not capability.
Fun fact. That ship is actually heavily based on the retired Oliver Hazard Perry class, also built at bath iron works back in the day.
@@BlunderMunchkin The Zumwalt got messed up when it went from 32 ships to 3 which drove up costs heavily
Is a Álvaro Bazán class
The Spanish frigate in service with Spain and Australia is highly thought of by those respective navies. Bath Iron Works has a great history of ship building. Good combination and likely winner.
And from a political standpoint Bath needs the work with the coming end of the DDG-1000 program.
I like the FREMM and Spain/Australia hull too. I do want to say these ships are really heavy (like 6000 tons). Forget about speed. Anyway, either of the LCS hulls should not be built due to the propulsion system and the shallow draft. The coast guard cutter hull looks like a viable option too. These frigates are being built to be a poor man's destroyer. The Navy is requesting 20 hulls and the most that can be built is 2 per year. Looks like some building will be done in another country in order to get all 20 hulls done in under ten years. Twenty hulls $20 billion. Get out the Visa.
It would be cool If the US picked the F-100 hull. And Canada picked the F-100 for the CAC. And Australia picked the F-100 hull with the sea 5000... Only time will tell..
The reason I think it will be the F100 hull is because the ship already incorporates the Aegis system. The FREMM does not. I think that makes the F100 an easy transition to the American fleet. US Navy should have been building these all along instead of those LCS boats.
F-100 all the way...
This is a really good idea to reintroduce a frigate into the US Navy. A smaller, cheaper ship that can still perform escort missions, and operate independently while be half the cost of a destroyer.
Sierra Vortec yes, I’m just hoping that the us can get s replacement for the harpoon soon. But, at least the new frigates will have anti ship missiles.
datboi knows best yes definitely. They are lagging behind the Russians and Chinese in that sense and the definitely realize that now. Short term they are introducing an anti-ship version of the Tomahawk and SM6 missiles I believe
the classification of frigate is merely a political way of saying something isnt gonna be that expensive to the public but wot ends up happening is the navy wants the capabilities of a destroyer in a frigate. Thus u have the whole type 26 global combat ship for the royal navy, classed as a frigate, same tonnage and capability as a destroyer, the government wanted frigates, the royal navy wanted destroyers. Its just a stupid loop. The USN will be the same and end up going for a simular solution to what the royal navy wanted but wont be able to afford as many as they would like.
Pi - lol, frigate also sounds more peaceful to the libtards then a mean DESTROYER.
New promo video of Navantia Australian F-5000 frigate.. The US should of looked at this ship.. th-cam.com/video/uviCSIC0mGU/w-d-xo.html
I put my bets on Navantia/Bath Iron Works.
Galvars, well they are the only ones that seemed to get the memo that warships need a a decent weapons payload.
@Majime The mains weapons system is AEGIS and effectively deployed on a 6000T displacement vessel when it was originally designed for 9000T +. Successful deployments include 5 in Spains Armada, 5 in Norwegian Navy (modified for the on same base) and 1st of three in Australian Navy (although they call them destroyers). 29+ Its and 5000 mile range at that speed. Active service experience etc. I'd say she's probably the best candidate.
F100 is a fine ship. 3 Hobarts are in the water now, 1 is in service, another was just commissioned in October, the 3rd is finishing fit-out and doing trials. Hobarts are built to aussie spec which puts them in a capabilities class of their own, and its a bigger yot than an F100 (designate F105).
@@user_mac0153 It's actually the same ship built top the same spec by the same company but in Australia. The variations are electrical and some electronics but the hull, performance, etc is the same. A great piece of kit.
Me too, and also F110 for ASW ;-)
Fincantieri looks great! Th General Dynamics ship looks like the child of the FFG7. I Like it as it was my former home. The Navy DOES NOT want a modified Coasty Cutter.
why not?
Fincantieri and Lockheed Martin had the best looking ships
I like the Navantia/Bath ship except for the 57 MM main gun forward, at least a 76 MM or what the French use, a 100 MM for a little more bang.
Australian Navy put the Mk45 127mm (5inch) on theirs
While the small size may seem a problem, they're fast firing, have some pretty potent new types of ammunition, and can stow more rounds per gun than the larger, heavier weapons.
While I can *definitely* see the advantage in having a little more bang for your gun, the place where having it would be most advantageous would be in taking out hard vehicles (tanks) in support of ground forces; a role that can be handled (perhaps) more easily by HellFire armed Fire Scout unmanned helicopters.
By contrast, I think what proponents of the smaller 57 mm gun are concerned about are the potential for a swarm of Boghammar small, fast attack boats. Against these, the 57 mm firing either the proven 3P ammunition (on timed mode to airburst over the targets, showering them with deadly fragments) or the newer ORKA rounds would enable the gun to engage the incoming threat at three times the kill speed.
While you may disagree (and that's cool; it's the hallmark of freedom for people to disagree), IMO, the 57 mm is plenty good.
(BTW: I only know about those two fancy types of ammo from other TH-cam videos. You might be interested in them. A search on Bofors 57 mm 3P ammunition ought to take you to the first one, and the videos from it should take you straight to the ORKA, if you're interested.)
The secondary ship armament, which I would think be at least something like a rapid firing 30MM canon could handle small craft at a medium distance and the 76MM at a longer range and then even closer would be deck mounted .50 caliber machine guns for whatever is left that might be still alive.
Reasonable, Abner, but I have to respectfully disagree.
The 57 mm. can handle pretty much 98% of what's out there all by itself, as opposed to needing to put two separate weapons (the 30 mm and 76 mm you brought up), with the attending need for crew to man them as well as the time and effort needed to maintain two separate weapon systems, as opposed to just one.
However, both of us agree with Naval SOP to have the deck mounted .50's to handle swimmers, floating mines, and other point-defense hazards.
New promo video of Navantia Australian F-5000 frigate.. The US should of looked at this ship.. th-cam.com/video/uviCSIC0mGU/w-d-xo.html
F100 is most likely winner. Uses currently in-service equipment, raytheon radar, and bath has a good history with US navy.
Won the shit option Fincarelly
@@larrymccoy5394 The option that didn't sink LMAOO now cry. You will be the only one to use F100 ahahah
Spoiler: Fincantieri won
USA know very well the F100 and how good it is as it is usual that one of this frigates sails with USA aircraft carriers. Also no integration problem as all this job is already done.
F
Navantia had the best program with the F-110 including cutting edge tech, ASW, Tomahawk missiles and the SCOMBA and AEGIS Systems.
Go with the NSC version I have been on them and they have plenty of space. Plus the bugs are worked out
The issue is the VLS cells. The new requirements state that it must have 32 while the cutter frigate only has 16 in the super structure. They could add another cluster of 16 somewhere else but there's no more room to add them into the superstructure. That being said it is my personal favorite design. Its exceptionally long range is particularly attractive.
@@Bibitybopitybacon I know it's not just as simple as what I'm about to say but it would only take adding 10-20ft in the area they need more space to fit the VLS. The NSC is one fine cutter
@@ah64dbeast37 That would work I'm sure. The Italians got the contract sadly. I'm not convinced they even really tried pushing the cutter. Their shipyard is booked up as it is.
In the end there will be a winner, (in my opinion it should be the proposal of BIW + Navantia) but if something is clear in the photo is that the candidate that better and faster would complement the rest of the fleet is the design of Navantia properly adapted to the specific requirements. If you do not look at that link that I put, on the right ...
Who gives more?
www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/north_america/usa/exhibition/SNA_2018/SNA_2018_top_banner.jpg
A huge mistake to have eliminated the British designed Type 26. The Aussies just chose the Type 26 over the F100 and the FREMM. Canada is likely to follow suit, which will bring the total to 32 Type 26 ships in service. In other words, 3 of the 5 Eyes will have the Type 26. Imagine the advantages in commonality of systems and ease of maintenance around the world if we joined in with 20 more. Not to mention that the Type 26 will be the most modern and advanced ASW platform in the world.
Not true, Aussies have F100 already, what they have choose is type26 instead of F110 (that is focused in war against submarines) what it is not clear at all is if it is because F110 design is not yet finished or becaused Commonwealth have make a lot of pressure because type26 ar most repairing because of continuous problems.
What are you talking about? The Type 26 class hasn't even entered service yet.
www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/03/21/uk-hires-team-to-stop-destroyers-from-breaking-down-at-sea/
Juan Carlos Calvente Crespo The keyword there is “destroyer” when we’re talking about “frigates”
The Australians and Canadians apparently chose the type 26, because Bae were prepared to customise the design, whereas the other bidders were not.
Fincantieri won the contract.
The shit option
Type 26 seems better suit for this..
@@larrymccoy5394
Vaffanculo
@@larrymccoy5394
th-cam.com/video/8f84V-QxS4U/w-d-xo.html
@@paolosprugnoli482 The problem of this accident was not the Ship idiot
Fincantiarri, FMM,..and Lockheed,...
Navantia Iron Works.
Bath Iron Works, hands down. FREMM second.
Even Leonardo. The new ship destroyers(PPX) will take the place of the class durand de la penne, will be an enlarged version of the frigates PPA with stealth capacity very thrusts and will have a dual band boosted new anti-ship missiles supersonic jets (development), a dual band more powerful radar he same missiles aster block 1nt of the fremm freda french, plus the camm-er
I would like to see something that is bigger than the Perry-class, with two shafts instead of one, have a 32 or 48-cell VLS firing SM2, ESSM, and VLAsroc. Plus, it will have phased array radars, medium frequency sonar along with a towed array. The gun should be an OTO-Melara 3"/76 gun with a CIWS. Also, it cannot be a foreign design or a variation of the LCS. I'm looking at the F100 frigate used by the Spanish & Austrailian Navies, I may have hopes for the Huntington-Ingalls patrol frigate model. And I'll add UK's Type26 frigate.
Autocannon on the front, helipad on the back, radar in the middle, what's not to like?
You may also reinforce the helideck and add further protections
4:26 the F-100 is evolved from the Oliver Hazard Perry class....WHAT?!?!
The Hull mainly but remember the Burke is a development of the Spruance and they are still being built.
And that might be the reason they get picked.
I just think it's phenomenal that the federal government is actually putting these contracts out for bid now. Over the past 30 or so years we've been paying companies to come up with the design and build two or three copies.
Anything but the LCS-variants and foreign designs. Must have more than 16 VLS and gun 3" and above.
Fascinating how even the US is now joining the trend toward international designs for naval craft. Here there were companies and designs from Australia, Spain, Italy and the US. Also fascinating how there is Australian involvement in two of the projects - The Austal design is the most radical design there based on Australian aluminum multi-hull technology, and the Navantia design, which was eventually selected by the US was developed by the Australians into Air Warfare Destroyers. A very capable design. I see they also use the Australian Nulka decoy system which is now used by Australia, Canada, and the US. Interesting that the Spanish design was able to beat out the American design. Even defense is becoming a global affair.
NATO and "14 Eyes" only.
FFGX will certainly require command and control platforms .. so the sailors on the ship can confidentially control the airspace surrounding the ship ...
Lockheed Martin definitely stands out the most to me , but wht do we expect coming from this major player in the game today of course it's also a u.s defense company . But alot of other very sweet designs as well !
Kapal fregate FREMM untuk indonesia👍👍
If there's sm2 and sm3 to sm6 why did they skip a few numbers of them lol
It seems odd to me that the main gun varies from ship to ship. Why wouldn’t a particular gun be specified?
All of them, very nice designs.
Lockheed Martin configuration is the most reasonable. The next upgrade from the configuration is integrated mask.
I think the Navantia design will likely be selected
Most definitely, the Lockheed Martin design is superior by far!
I don't know any of those companies but I think the best design is the one based on the National Security Cutter....
I would like to see the U.S. Navy build adopt Great Britain's Type 26 frigate (a.k.a. City-class frigate). It is a terrific warship.
Type 26 a very complete vessel, small with great capacities, the Navantia one also very good (and proven), pure American, the Lockheed Martin one, The LCS, not to consider seriously: Launchers next to helicopter ops deck??? hahahaha
Any frigate based upon the LCS failed ship designs should absolutely NOT be considered. Nor will they, ultimately.
Not to mention it's armed to the extent of some destroyers...
Andres Mendez I don’t think the Type 26 is small at all. It’s longer and has greater displacement than the Navantia F100.
The Budget for the FFGX is $800m per Ship, you wont build T26s for that much
needs cargo space to fit a standard half size shipping container
I liker the FREEM by France/Italy or the slightly more capable F100 from Spain. We cannot allow US manufacturers to dictate another fiasco like the LCS or DDG1000 ships plus the European ships are plainly better built and more reliable.
👍
Navantia!
No, the F-100 has a new hull design for ASW as of 2017...
Joe Dickson continues to have more capabilities than other frigates
Joe Dickson su principal objetivo sería proteger a portaaviones verdad ?
Da igual el sigilo si acompaña a un portaaviones detectable en cualquier circunstancia
Your main objective would be to protect aircraft carriers right?
It does not matter if there is stealth accompanied by an aircraft carrier that can be detected under any circumstance
Joe Dickson y creo que es la única con el radar Aegis
and I think it's the only one with the Aegis radar
Joe the new design hull is stealth and more so with the F-5000 and SCAC frigates as there more made for ASW... And they can still do it with gas diesel engine, all so good for distance....
I love how the government allows the private sector to make things for the military. Makes for good economic growth.
OK---; I have been in love with the Tri-hull since i first laid eyes on it in spite of all its faults, the biggest one in my book is the 57mm Mk 101 gun. And I have tried to talk myself into supporting the new FFG Tri-hull in spite of the gun and the fact it only carries 16 Mk 41 launch cells. I have finally grudgingly accepted that the Bath Iron works ship is actually the best of the bunch for the FFG job. the Bath ship not only has a more capable longer ranged 5 inch gun as well as double the Mk 41 missile launchers while being larger enough to mount additional weapons. The only thing the ship needs is a different propulsion system. Namely an Electric drive from the Zumwalt DD-1000 that the Bath people are well familiar with and should be easy to upgrade the ship with, to provide power for the new laser systems being developed and are about to be deployed.
The updated requirements for the (ffx) include a minimum of 32 MK 41 cells and enough extra power for a 150kw solid state laser. All of the shipyards are modifying their designs to match. So the Independence class Frigate final design will have all of those features.
i like the second one
more bigger longer range / rpm / more close support / asw // fast ! // railgun ???
Yeah same
They should remove the Hellfire missile launcher and replace it with another 16 cells of MK-41 VLS on the Lockheed Martin frigate
You need to remember that each VLS cell would hold 4 ESSMs, which would give the ship a maximum of 64 SAMs. As it is, it is highly unlikely that those VLS cells will carry anything else, including VL-ASROC.
An anti-ship Tomahawk would not be carried by this kind of ship. They would be better carried by a Burke or Tico. Same for the SM-6.
But the EASR radar on the Frigate is even more capable than the SPY-1 radar onboard the Ticos and Burkes. It will be a waste if you only carry ESSMs that have a range of 50km. EASR is fully compatible with SM-6s and also SM-2 Block IIICs. EASR even has a limited Terminal Ballistic missile defense capability.
Adding 16 more VLS cells means that the figate can carry 64 ESSMs as well as 16 SM-6 or SM-2 Block IIIC
As for ASuW, the Navy has already chosen the Norwegian Naval Strike missile as its anti ship missile
Hwang Anderson totally agree. Hellfire don't do hardly any major damage to a major surface warship
The navy just upped the requirements from 16 cells to 32 cells. So looks like they agree with you!
I would've gone for both the Lockeed Martin and the Austal ships.
Will if lockheed martin will win, i think it will use the design of type 26.
I was hoping Canada went with the F-100. It’s proven, and could be built almost immediately. But, we’re stuck with the type 26, yes it may turn out ok, but we have to wait another 5 years before the first is in service, and close to 20 for the entire fleet, whereas the U.S would have them in 10 or less.
@@soulsphere9242 I think if you look at the British model it makes a LOT of sense moving forward... you have the Type 45 (similar to an Arleigh Burke in size/armament) for heavy lifting, the Type 26 (basically an FFGX type of ship) which is an extremely capable ASW platform, but also a very powerful general duties frigate and a carrier escort... then you have a fleet of smaller/cheaper vessels like their Type 31e which is perfect for all the anti-piracy/anti-smuggling/anti-drug/counter-terrorism operations where sending a billion dollar air-defense destroyer is just a huge waste of money and a liability. All those ships really need is a small 16 to 24-cell air-defense VLS battery , a main gun for intimidation, maybe a pair of quad anti-ship missiles for standoff and a flexible mission space (including a hangar) that can be customised to suit its current objectives. THe independence class LCS was meant to be like a type 31e but wheras the Type 31e costs about $250million, the LCS costs $750 million! I think the British have got it right; if you're going to go small and cheap go small and cheap. If you're going to go big then go big. The problem with FREMM and the F100 is they are already old designs and they're in an uncomfortable middle ground where they aren't much cheaper than an Arleigh Burke but they are nowhere near as capable.
I crewed aboard a Class 7 frigate, in the '80's. The Bath design is very similar to their original.
how do you get into one of these things
I knew the Italian Fremm will win. The US had worked with them before, they have a ship building yard in the US, cost wise cheaper and last but not less, the system Compatibility
Yes fincantieri will renown the military ship building yard with a new totaly design to build navy and move them very easy. this is one of the reason US chosed to go with the italian FREMM. it will have 100% american tech on it.
yeah, to fit in command and control, the height of ship increases
Which ever one the pick I hope it is better than the Knox's were, served aboard FF1057 The RatTurd as we called her.
did she say 28 knots ?
fincantieri italy win
Alla faccia di tutti
Spagnoli in primis
Bath iron works = best quality.
Most proven company.
Spoiler: Fincantieri won
LOL I kinda want the LCS Independence base ship design to win, mainly because it's just so damn cool...
Just because it look good does not make it the best
@@jeremyfeldmann7969 Definitely. Its too bad those ships have so many issues...
Please add these ships to Arma 3
I'd go with the General Dynamics Frigate, it's an evolution of OHP Frigates, it's a proven design and does exactly what it needs to do. The LMT ship is a little too over the top and we give them more than enough projects. The LCS based frigate is a no period. No we won't use modified puddle pirate boats in the Navy so fuck that. The rest are too costly. Former MT2 (ss) USN
The modified LCS is interesting for it's launch system behind the helicopter platform.
I looks very wet and susceptible to damage.
What happened to the zimwalt design that was to be the next fleet design
Scats Scats the Zumwalt is a destroyer design, and congress has basically killed it with artificial budget inflations because reasons i guess.
@@Phoenix37csp They killed it because the navy couldn't decide what kind of role they would be useful for aside from land attack. Essentially they decided to build a only 3 to have them as test beds but since only funding for 3 was provided when 30 were originally proposed the cost of the guided ammo their guns fired ballooned to over $800000 per round and then funding was cut for the ammo as well leaving the zumwalts main guns without any ammo.
Where was the bid from the UK for type 26?
sensible driver it’s not in service yet and it’s too expensive anyway
We ordered F35 before it was in service and other counties have ordered Type 26.
sensible driver I know but the requirement for that program is that the ship has to already be in service
@@GGG19872 Never knew that, thx. Americans dont worry about the price LOL
sensible driver they have a set budget for each ship and t 26 is too expensive per ship
Why don't America just built their own frigates just like the Berkeley class but a smaller version then you can keep all your secrets I don't understand?
John Gora I think it's because they don't have enough time to design a new ship from scratch.
First thing you should do is learn to speak English . The second thing you should do is make sense .
The F-100 is basically that. Take a Perry class frigate and a Burk class destroyer give em some vodka and a hotel room and 9 months later you get that oddly Spanish bastard.
Philippines need that frigates
Why doesn't the US Navy use the Thales radar systems? They are proven to be better than the ones they use now.
US doesn't like the FRENCH?
@@RR-us2kp Thales is Dutch
US has AN/SPY-6 for Flight III Arleigh Burke-class DDG and AN/SPY-6(V)4 to be retrofitted to Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class DDG
OK---- I am glad to see that the Ausy Bath Iron works ship seams to be the favorite ship in the comments section even though it will not do 45 knots. To bad the Tri hull people won't get their heads out of their asses and upgrade their LCS ship the way it should be. LOL.
I worked at that yard. They'll never pull thier head out there ass.
SSC is for FFGX
The Bath frigate’s layout is a little concerning. It looks as though all of its anti surface and anti air is located on the fo’c’sle. I’d feel better in the Austrel; if only because it would be safer from a lucky shot.
Are you saying an aluminum hull takes a hit better?
I put my bets on Lockheed Martin!!!
The Ingalls design looks like an update of the old OHP.
It's a proven design
Reminds me of the Bradley fighting vehicle debacle.
I like the LockHeed Offering, It's wonderfully Powerful and the inclusion of a Laser Defense System Tickles my fancy, I would however suggest they retrofit the firepower of the main cannon back to a 5 Inch Gun or even upgrade it to the automatic 125 MM Naval cannon consept they presented back in the Late 70's, I understand Why they lowered the fire power (The main cannon will be used as part of the missile defense net and as a close up anti-aircraft weapon) and while I agree that that's probably both the most pragmatic and the correct choice (Given the rigors of modern war) however I still feel taking away. A ships ability to engage in ship to ship combat after it's limited missile compliment has been exhausted may be a serious mistake (Or at least a liability) Should this ships ever be called to fight against a proper naval adversary.
Mk 110 Bofors has a high rate of fire and is more capable at taking out small boats. We already have cruisers and destroyers with 5 inch guns. The OHP had a 76 mil and did just fine.
The updated requirements for the ffx program include power for installation of a 150kw laser. So regardless of the ship they pick it will have a laser eventually.
USA will probably never chose a design coming from outside USA. They do this contest to compare.
Just build them all :)
Why do almost none of the ships have a CWIS?
They definately need at least one given they barely have enough missile tubes to defend themselves not to mention other ships.
Violent Kisses; First of all, that I saw in the video and to my knowledge, at least 3 of the candidates include at least one CIWS assembly, either the latest versions of the Vulcan Phalanx, the Sea RAM, or the Millenium Gun. In the Navantia / B.I.W model. It does not appear on the model because this is a reproduction of the F-105 of the Spanish Navy, which for various reasons does not usually mount them on their ships; but the Australian AWD destroyers of the Hobart class (which are an evolution of this) if they ride them. Apart from that in that particular case (and in some of the other candidates as well) the ESSM missiles of the VLS MK-41 launcher have a very high anti-missile capacity very reliable and demonstrated in multiple exercises with real fire coming to be the case of neutralization of missiles by direct impact. Even the Standart SM-2 / ER missiles also have some capacity.
Anyway, The current trend of the US Navy is to relegate its 20mm CIWS to non-AEGIS ships, that is, ships that do not have the binomial formed by the AEGIS combat system and the Spy-1D radar) leaving the anti-missile defense of these in the hands of Hardkill systems such as the ESSM and Softkill as electronic countermeasures ... and from the first American destroyer A.Burke delivered to the US Navy with ESSM (DDG-85 USS McCampbell) they even do it without the anti-missile system RAM. The evolution of the latest high-speed anti-ship rockets threatens to make most CIWS systems useless (except for the latest version of SeaRAM) given the very small amount of time they would have to react and face the threat.
So the Navy is supposedly willing to pay $950 million per forget for 20 frigates I think the type 45 could be gotten for that amount if we committed to all 20.
BAE never offer the Type45. Their bid was the Type26. Also there is a problem with the propulsion system on the Type45 which is still not resolved.
ohredhk if they fix the problem by simply switching to an American engine that powers the Burkes that would fix all the problems. Plus we can say that it's a joint venture between us in the British and make it an easier political get.
The us navy will never buy a non us ship.
A little under a billion dollars would not be too expensive for the type 45 they cost a billion pounds when the British built them for themselves. However they only Built 6. If we committed to 20 I think we could easily get it for 950 million a piece. As far as the US never buying anything but an American ship you may be right about that but but I think buying a good ship from one of our allies would be a healthy thing for our industry in America to see that they're not guaranteed these contracts they have to work for them and bring costs down.
MattCellaneous you are right it would work but with all the vested interests Congress would never agree. I am British and get the impression that everyone in congress is out to get the best deal for his/her own state regardless of what is best for the nation as a whole.
Just stay away from the lousy LCS based FFGs
I predict whoever gives the biggest bribe to the Admirals will get the contract.
lockheed martin wins then
ghalting guns.. missiles, heaps and heaps of missiles .. ability to assemble
I'll take the new French DCNS Belharra with Aster 30's and complete package. Need it for 2020.
These frigates are for most countries to patrol their seas. USA will build their own destroyers. What use are frigates for USA when they need larger more equipped destroyers since deployed world wide with various carriers?
Go the german design a very modern and multipurpose design.
Currently in service with room for expansion and the right capabilities with stealth built in.
French Frégates de taille intermédiaire (BELH@RRA), compact FREMM, but still multi purpose.
Which means it is capable of fleet sentry frigate or single patrol.
4250 ton, similar to Perry/ Knox class; 110+15 crews; both refers to low operation cost!
The Original FREMM design should have been adopted and now the navy have chosen the FREMM that doesn't look or have the bang like the original ones used by Italians and French navy... F**k it even looks like the outdated Oliver perry class Frigate
The FREEM is the best serving frigate in the world right now
You mean 2nd best, F-100 is 1st best..Both ships cost the most...
marco fava fremm, XD fremm only buyed by morocco, and no aegis, so jo cares, f-100 has 42 cell lauchers ready for tomahaks
yes, but they have to modify F-100's upper structure. The Navy wants EASR radar which has 3 faces. Current F-100 was intended to accommodate a 4 faced radar
beer baron -
Ian Farr-Wharton
The class F100 is not a frigate but a destroyer, equal to class horizon Franco- italian, type45, ddg51 burke. and then the fremm is offered with radar Raytheon and 32 cells, ps 42 cells does not exist because each canister contains 8 cells
The heavy frigates do not exist, the adjective heavy was in use in the second world war, the number of cells not qualifying destroyer or frigate, but what is more serious that you do not know is that the frigate derived from Perry is called class Santa Maria, the F100 are a subclass of ddg 51, then a destroyer. ps, I pray thee, before me informed well
7:29 the worst of all in the competition lol wtf did they think ..... + i bet the spainish will win for sure
Frigates class FREMM by Fincantieri are the best and already in service 👍
...sorry, but if our country would buy guided missile frigates, I wish it would be from FREMM or Navantia... however, the presentor from Ingals makes me think twice...
I liked Lockheed Martin's design the best.
frigate, from Lockheed Martin, the best, on fire qualities
Us needs some boat designers shit were looking at going pay big dollars for piece shit.
Why cant USA build their won 🤔
only bought hulls will be outfitted with US systems
Well done the US Navy - they excluded the most advanced and capable Frigate design the Type 26 from the UK in build for the Royal Navy. the Aussies just bought the Type 26 and the Canadians will now follow. So when you need a capable ASW Frigate give the Royal Navy, the Royal Australian Navy or the Royal Canadian Navy a call. You're welcome
As an American, I thank you for the offer. If I was in politics, I'd sure be putting up a nice argument for at least a few of those vessels. If not from Britain itself, then an American-built one. From what I've read, the T26 is shaping up to be quite capable.
POZ - The Aussies are building theirs in Australia, the Canadians would build theirs in Canada and we all know the US would do the same as this competition is structured for that. The Type 26 is already capable of multiple system integration (AEGIS and LM Combat Systems are going into the Aussie boats) but the US Navy have insisted on only considering old designs with fixed systems. It seems like they wanted anything except the British design. And yet it is happy to invest in advanced naval technology at home (Zumwalt and LCS)
So what I don't understand is that the US Navy is buying an ASW Frigate (a vessel they haven't actually had before) and are excluding the latest technology and design.
1chish Cool. Didn't know about that lol.
@@1chish The navy is not considering the type 26 because it isn't proven. Hell there isn't even one floating. The navy has spend billions on the LCS and Zumwalt with little to show for it. They are wary of a new design because of that. But lets not forget, this is only an order of 20 ships. Thad doesn't even come close to replacing the ships retired and they want 350 ship navy. I'm sure another order of frigates will happen. Its entirely possible some version of the type 26, or something based on it will be adopted eventually.
I like the bath ship the most
One can never know what the DOD/Navy will decide upon for its front-line frigate. Whatever gets built should be as strong, durable and flexible as can be made, given the rising costs of defense spending. These ships will be expected to last about 25 years with normal rotations into port for repairs and upgrades. They will likely be more automated, reducing the crew requirements. The Danish Navy has built its Iver Huitfeldt class
Frigates with workable, proven designs and the U.S. Navy should be willing to consider how they made cost and time savings to re-use proven designs vs. inventing something entirely new. Whether it is out of pride or a ‘buy American’ requirement, the U.S. Navy should incorporate some of the designs used by the Danish Navy to save costs.
We have lasers you guys! :-D
yeah, the model ship does :-P
Would be damn cool if US navy could buy some FREMM, it’s a really good ship especially for anti air defense .
Lockheed
Need bigger rockets and a nuclear powered engine.
Seriously?
Too much emphasis is placed on anti-air. It's 2018 and these knuckle heads are still wanting to use canister launched harpoons? You would think that the Navy would expect more for an Anti-surface platform. They can't even make anti-ship missiles from a VLS platform? I honestly don't see why Navy retired the OPs when all they could have done was upgrade the radar and EW systems.....this is wasteful.
They're planning to reintroduce Tomahawk missiles with anti-ship capabilities, which would give these ships quite a punch.
Unfortunately it isn't that easy to upgrade the Perry class. The VLS that they use are completely obsolete and arent compatible with modern missiles. They would have to rip out the VLS and add modern cells MK 41 cells. They would also need to replace the power plant so it could have enough power generation to supply the the more modern radar systems. They would probably need to replace all the electronics also. After a refit that extensive it would still be cheaper then buying new ones, but congressmen need to keep those shipyards open in their districts. And you're right, the lack of a US longrange antiship missile is ridiculous.
I still think Lockheed Martin's ship would have been the best choice
Yeah. The FFX entries are basically a debugged version of of the LCS ships. They can still operate in Littorial waters, but can handle themselves in the open seas too.
I have the impression that the US Navy used as a criterion for choosing which one was the ugliest aesthetically.