Secretary of the U.S. Navy Kenneth J. Braithwaite announced USS Constellation (FFG62) as the name for the first ship and class of the new guided missile frigates.

The design is a variant of Fincantieri Marinette Marine’s FREMM multipurpose frigate.

“As the first in her class, these ships will now be known as the Constellation Class frigates, linking them directly to the original six frigates of our Navy, carrying on the traditions of our great service which have been passed down from generation to generation of Sailors,” said Braithwaite.

“While providing an unmatched capability and survivability for the 21st Century, Constellation Class Frigates will honor our Navy’s historic beginnings as we continue to operate around the world in today’s era of Great Power Competition.”

The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020, the next 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2021-FY2029, and the 20th in FY2030.

The U.S. Navy’s proposed FY2020 budget requests $1,281.2 million for the procurement of the first FFG(X). Additionally, the U.S Navy’s FY2020 budget submission shows that subsequent ships in the class are estimated by the Navy to cost roughly $900 million each in then-year dollars.

Recently, the second ship in the class was named USS Congress.

“To honor and recognize the work [Congress] and your staff do every day to support our Sailors and Marines, I take pleasure in announcing that a future frigate will carry the name Congress,” said Braithwaite.

“The Department of the Navy looks to you for the strong oversight and partnership that has enabled our maritime strength ever since Congress authorized the construction of our first six ships — the mighty American frigates of 1794.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

87 COMMENTS

      • I did see something about them a while back, need to go do some research now…… ( gave you an Upvote mate !!!! )

      • I’ll make a prediction they’ll end up with substantially more than twenty….

        once these start rolling off the production line, so to speak, they’ll just keep ordering them…

        • Wouldn’t be at all surprised if they didn’t end with more like 30-40 of them, as at some stage they will stop production of AB’s. If not stop, then certainly centre ASW efforts on this class.

          • I also think eventually the USN will order more then 20. And replace some of the earlier ABs with them.

          • They need them desperately they have been very short sighted on this type of ship and only the threat from China that is knocking out similar vessels at breakneck speed has caused the belated re think. So yes they will churn them out double quick because it’s both a capability unlike us they lack and because politically they can’t accept the idea that the Chinese will have more ships than them and this is the only way they can achieve it. This has only been emphasised by the disasters and horrendous growing costs of the Zumwalts et al and associated cancellations.

          • Indeed for the reasons and experiences I spell out above which has led to disasters in new ship design in the US, the T26, despite some support over there could not be considered. Of course if we hadn’t delayed it the way we had I suspect it would have had an excellent chance of being selected as US suppliers will be heavily involved in the Canadian version and as such a real boost to global Britain

          • Well… lets put it like this. Given how much the USN is paying for it’s first in class Constellation (750million USD), and how much the unit price is for the other contenders (300million-800million), I’m not sure the Type 26 variants (at 1.5-3.5billion USD) would be in the price range Congress was looking for.

          • It’s crazy that for all the resources of the US navy they completely overlooked anti sub frigates for decades and focused on the Zumwalt and LCS programs. Maybe Congress just didn’t trust US companies to design a frigate at a sensible price.

          • Hubris they in total delusion got absorbed by the idea bigger is better. Main opponent Russia had similar delusions tbh then became for a long time irrelevant China had shown them the stupidity of such thinking as has long range anti ship missiles as a real threat to their major ships making numbers more important too.

          • The FFG(X) costing prompted me to look up western estimate of Chinese frigate costs. Obviously subject to challenge, but seems they’d want two/three competent vessels for the price of one. Pays to have control over labour plus no effective profit margin to account for, as a couple of factors, but represents a serious outturn per buck issue regardless. During the Cold War America could effectively bankrupt the Soviets i.e. the ‘war’ was economic to a significant degree. Methinks the Chinese likely intend to turn the tables on the west before even considering a fight. That said, we ought to be able to use longtime skills in diplomacy and multilateralism, together with technology, to dodge that ball. ?

          • You have to remember that the US could afford to Bankrupt the Soviet Union because their systems where entirely seperate.
            For the PRC bankrupting the US is an own goal since their economic systems are extremely intertwined. Not to say that won’t happen, but I doubt it is their goal.

          • Good point, could come down to the extent to which West makes itself dependent upon Chinese manufacturing. More mutually respectful political and trading agreements with everyone else out there would be a good application of D&M skills.

          • Well what Soviet Union produced that the world wanted? except weapons and oil nothing else.

            China is a complete different ballpark, the red star is only there to save face. China is a quasi liberal dictatorship, Forgive me the paradox, but the mantra is get rich just do not defy party authority.

          • Does depend on how far they want to extend that mantra towards the rest of us, which is not going to happen. I’m relatively sanguine over the Chinese nation (I divorce that concept from the Polituro as you’ve likely observed) becoming top dog in time, since many of us have had our go at that. However, it must be built upon mutual respect and cooperation if that’s to happen. Same with all sovereign
            relationships, of course.

          • Shame they pissed about with it then. Wasn’t the initial plan to have them hitting the water in 2018?

      • To be fair: Prior existing class adapted to USN service with no worries about keeping the yards in work, and little worry about in year budgets. Even then the first in class isn’t expected to be in service before 2030, so, all going to plan, after the first 3 Type 26’s.

        • Appreciate US approach totally different to ourselves, led by a capability gap in their force structure, so build lots and fast is their way.
          Believe that the US also wants them all built by 2030/31, so majority should be in service well before we get 2-3 T26’s.
          TBF, they average 2-3 years from laid down to in commission for their AB’s, so this timescale shouldn’t present any major issues for the USN, he says…….!!

          • Well you are using two very different standards here.
            The Constellation class might (might) be built by 2030, but they won’t be in service.
            “The USS Constellation is scheduled to be delivered in 2026 and is expected to achieve initial operational capability (IOC) by 2030.” https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/constellation-class-guided-missile-frigates/
            4 years is pretty standard for first in class sea trials and commissioning btw (2-3 years for the AB’s isn’t representative because they’ve been in service with the USN so long there are relatively few kinks to work out). Going by that you’re unlikely to see the entire 20 class in service any time before the mid 2030’s, by which point 4-5 of the Type 26’s will be in service.

          • Hi Dern, good points mate, don’t necessarily disagree either, but don’t you think it slightly odd if the USN have say 15 or so ships built but none in service, all waiting for – what? I know they have never used this propulsion system before, but are addressing any associated potential issues with a land based test facility to mitigate some risk there.
            I think that whilst the ABs are not exactly representative , they’re not that far short as this is basically a FREMM class so they will receive lots of input from the Italians where required.
            Only my thoughts on the matter, and I’m far from an expert in shipbuilding, but the point I was alluding to(possibly badly) is that they will have more units in service before we get our 8 T26’s up and running, despite starting this project years after us.

          • They won’t just be waiting, sea trials and fitting out are things that take time. Nobody is going to rush a class of surface combatants into service before they’ve completed first in class trials. And it’s nothing to do with the propulsion system, it just takes a few years to complete trials on new ships.
            Arleight Burke for example: Launched 1989, Commissioned 1991, entered service 1993.
            Or as another example, the first Type 23, HMS Norfolk was launched in 1987, but wasn’t operational until december 1991, by which point there where 5 more Type 23’s in the water (none of which where operational).
            And the Arleight Burkes in the 2020’s are NOT representative in any way shape or form. Their trials and commissioning process is for a ship that has been in service for decades and (as you can see comparing the current timelines to the original AB) they have litterally shaved years off of how long it takes from getting one into the water to into operations in that time.
            As for having ships more ships in service before all 8 Type 23’s are in service? I have two things to say about that:
            1) the last Type 28 is due in service by 2038 at which point the RN will have 13 new frigates in service (potentially more pending type 32), and I suspect given the 2030 IOC for Constellation (given a 2 a year drumbeat that other USN ship programs seem to be going for) you’d see the last of them coming online at the same time. So yes there is a disparity, but 13 v 20 isn’t that big.
            2) The USN is a 480 ship navy. The RN is a 76 ship navy. We aren’t getting as many ships as the Americans? Shock.

          • The Congress is already “sabotaging” the timescale. Since the FFGX can’t use the French electrical engines that are in FREMM since they are not build in US, it will use the DRS from Leonardo, but the Congress wants them tested into a land setup. Due to LCS and Zummy disasters, also of Ford i understand some of it, but are they aware of Chinese large advance?

          • Ta for the perspective, will be interesting to see how the build pans out, I’m still a tad unsure, but will keep an open mind WRT their progress.
            I wasn’t really comparing different classes of ships being built, nor the fact that the USN is a larger navy-bit of a given really, but just comparing timescales for two classes vessels with the same roles.
            Yes I know we have chosen to slow the build rate down, due to money, but that doesn’t make it right or clever.

          • Baisically: Larger Navy= Bigger production facilities = More ships in less time.
            And yes the slow build rate does make sense, it’s less due to money, it’s more about preserving the work force (in the long run it costs more money, but less for each year). Baisically by slowing the work down you keep people with key skills employed, who’d otherwise vanish to new jobs.
            They do the same for armoured vehicles, Japan ordered their new tanks at the rate of something like 10 a year. Could they have built more faster? Sure. What would have happened to the work force between them finishing work and Japan deciding they want a new tank 10 years down the line however? Same with ship building, ideally you want a ship building program to last until you are ready to order the next set of ships.

          • Well, to be fair, it’s probably a bit of both, in money and job preservation. Especially as we didn’t go with the 13 as originally planned (yes I know the T31s are making up the GP role).
            It seems to me we never had any intention of procuring 13 T26’s, which, whomever you want to believe, has ultimately led to this slow build rate. It’s all a bit frustrating, spending money on T23 Life Ex, as new build rate is slow, all a bit of a waste!!!
            I don’t think anyone at MOD knows how many T45 replacements to expect, although I expect the Navy has an idea of how many they would like. That should be interesting to see what develops.

    • Technically much better. The frigates will be getting the Raytheon SPY-6 (v)3 radar. It is a brand new up to date active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar compared to Artisan, that was conceived in the 1990’s and is a passive electronically scanned radar (PESA). The SPY-6(v)3 is a scaled down version that the Arleigh Burkes (AB) are getting. However, the frigates are only going to use 3 panel arrays rather than the AB’s four. The picture below shows a pair of SPY-6 (V)4 arrays for a AB Flight IIA destroyer. The height and width are about 20ft.

      https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/sites/rtx1/files/2020-01/spy_radar_hero_lg_0.jpg

      The SPY-6 series of panels are made up of 2ft cubed blocks (44 for the arrays above), so you can add or remove bocks to scale up/down the performance of the radar. It also makes it easier to repair if damaged. But their real party trick is that they are a dual band radar. Each of the blocks contain a number of transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs). In turn, each of the TRMS has two channels, one for S band frequencies and the other for X band. S band is primarily used for large volume searches of the sky, whilst X being a higher frequency is used for target identification and tracking. As the bands are widely spaced there will be very little mutual interference. Which means both bands can be transmitted and received simultaneously.

      The Type 26 will only have one primary radar, the Artisan (Type 997). This is a good radar, but is now really getting long in the tooth. It is also an S band radar, But it has to do all the jobs of volume searching, target identification and target tracking. It is also a single faced mechanically rotating array antenna, spinning at 30 rpm (once every two seconds). It has its pros and cons like any system.

      Having one antenna that is relatively light, means you can place it high up on a mast, whilst a fixed panel array weighs considerably more, therefore, has to be placed lower in the ship to maintain the ship’s balance. By placing it higher up Artisan will have a longer radar horizon. However, it will have a continuously rotating 240 degree dead zone, whereas the three SPY6 panels will give the ship a constant 360 view. The three panel array being used in the frigates means that their overall weight is lower than the four panel arrays, so they will be placed higher when compared to the AB’s.

      In the days of subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles this isn’t so much of a problem. But the ships will soon be faced with the hypersonic (Mach 5+) missile threat. A Mach 1 missile will be travelling at 1,192.7kph or 0.331 m/s at sea level; whilst a Mach 5 missile will be travelling at 5,963.4kph or 1.66 m/s (hypothetically, it’s unlikely they will fly at sea level due to atmospheric friction, as the air is much thicker). For a mechanically rotating radar, once the threat disappears into the dead zone. Its track is placed in to memory and the computer uses it past track history to predict the current and future track. As soon as the antenna rotates and illuminates the target again, the real track gets up dated. Therefore, when you fire a missile at the target, say a SeaCeptor. The missile is command guided to the predicted intercept point from using a combination of predicted and real track data. Then when it gets to a certain distance from the target, the SeaCeptor will activate its onboard radar. Hopefully the target will be within the field of view of it’s radar.

      If the T26 had a fixed panel array, the threat would be constantly tracked in near real time. In fact from the same panel, you could dedicate a single beam to continuously illuminate the threat, whilst transmitting another beam to scan the sky. This means in the SeaCeptor example, the target’s track is more predictable, so there’s an even greater chance of putting the missile in the right place for an intercept. In a lot of respects the T31 will be getting a better radar with the Thales NS-100. This is an up to date AESA radar, but again it only uses one antenna face and is mechanically rotated. So it has the pros of allowing it to be mounted high up, but still has the dead zone disadvantage. It does have other major benefits over the Artisan PESA radar, such as lower probability of intercept, less likely to be jammed, better clutter rejection, better target identification and resolution etc.

      • If the Thales NS-100 is that much better than Type 997, why is the supposedly more advanced Type 26 getting the worse radar? Purely because they’re transferable from Type 23s?

        • Because the Type 26 is designed for anti sub and anti ship. So it does not need most advanced AA radar. So Artisan radar is sufficient for the T26 self defense. Fleet protection is ensured by the Type 45.
          It is important to remember that ships do not operate on their own in a time of war, but collectively with different assets on the battlefield.
          Obviously always having the best kit would be better, but with limited means, choices have to be made. TBH i find the lack of fixed panel AESA on Type 26 less of a problem than the the lack of firepower on the Type 31. Hopefully new budget increase will improve Type 31’s weaponry
          My 2 cents

          • I appreciate that the Type 26 doesn’t have the same radar requirements at a Type 45/Constellation, but surely with ever faster and stealthier anti-ship missiles we’d want a radar system which wasn’t approaching 25 years old on our frigates?

            Not to mention, if we are procuring Thales NS-100 radars why not procure them on the Type 26 if it is the more advanced radar?

          • Because you have limited cash to spend on fleet so spend it where it’s needed. As Lord Templar said; you don’t need a NS-100 on type 26, so save that expense and use the money to get something that has more utility.

          • What’s to say that a Type 26 wouldn’t be operating alone, covering supply lines from submarine attacks? Or hunting subs some ~30km away from the CSG and so far away enough from a Type 45 that its own radar will (or won’t) pick up an incoming missile far earlier?

          • As has been mentioned before it may be down to cost, i.e. using the radar from the Type 23’s. But its more likely part of the contractual agreement that the T26 is supplied with Artisan. It doesn’t mean it will keep it though!

          • What’s to say operational doctrine doesn’t exclude a carrier escort being some distance away from the carrier? And thus needs an up to date radar to protect itself.

          • It has an up to date radar, just not as good as the Type 31 (which in turn has one that isn’t as good as the Type 45).

            You are playing the armchair admiral game which in theory ends with “Why don’t we put a VLS farm on our OPVs, they might be in a position that needs them.” rather than the realistic priority game “Will this need X, or can it make do with Y and we use the money to buy Z that we can put to better use.”

            Okay we probably could buy 5 sets of NS-100 radars for the Type 26’s instead of inheriting the Artisans, but what is it worth cutting to achieve that? 1 less hull in the water? A few F-35’s? Or are we going to accept that as a high end ASW escort AAW is not it’s priority and that it should deploy as part of a rounded force?

          • What I’m saying is that it is illogical to put a lower tier radar on a supposedly higher tier ship. Surely it would make more sense to transfer the Artisan to the Type 31s (and potentially whatever follows) and procure NS-100 for the Type 26.

          • Except that since the Type 31’s are designed to operate on their own, and the Type 26’s are designed to operate as ASW specialists in conjunction with Type 45’s and Aircraft Carriers, it doesn’t, as I said earlier.

          • Except that since the Type 31’s are designed to operate on their own, and the Type 26’s are designed to operate as ASW specialists in conjunction with Type 45’s and Aircraft Carriers, it doesn’t, as I said earlier.

            That is nice in powerpoint but it is not war. Paraphrasing the light brigade comment…,
            And also another citation “no plan survives contact with enemy.” Type 26 will do what will be requested.
            After all this time i hope the RN learned something from Falklands where they went with frigates having worse air defense than the late WW2 destroyers.

          • I gather the main reason T31 is getting the better radar is because all up cost to Team31 is less than with Artisan & it’s a fixed cost contract. Artisan is a BAE product, T26 is using a BAE CMS & T26 is a BAE design. With T31, NS100 is a Thales product, the CMS is a Thales product & Thales has been involved in the T31/A140 design, which includes options for even better radars. Why would you want to remove Artisan from T23, re-design that part of your ship, fit it & integrate it into your ship & CMS, all at your own cost (& no-one else is likely to buy Artisan – not even for an export T31), when you can supply better at a known fixed cost & still meet the contract?

          • Great, but guess what you still need to plan, and prioritise. You know what else we should put on a Type 26, a flight deck so it can operate F-35’s because you never know it might need them.
            You can’t sit down and say “well we will plan for every contigency.” You need to sit down and realistically come up with doctrine and then build to doctrine, otherwise you’ll never be able to afford a fleet (and yes even the Americans do this).
            Type 31 is meant to operate on it’s own, so it will be designed to operate on it’s own, Type 26 is designed to operate as part of a task group, so it’ll be designed to operate as part of a task group. Inherently we have to take compromises somewhere, and you focus those ocmpromises in the areas where they present minimal risk.

          • If it’s covering a supply line from submarine attacks why isn’t a Type 45 covering it from air attack then since that appears also to be a risk hmmm?

          • That’s a bit of an assumption in and off itself. But if you are worried about a convoy coming under attack from surface threats… why are you sending an ASW frigate to protect it… and not say… an escort designed to protect things from surface threats.

          • It’s not an assumption, it’s a possibility which is certainly in the realm of what we could expect a fighting frigate to do. The type 31 doesn’t cut it for war-time escort missions, it’s woefully under-armed.

          • 1 Type 45 isn’t a frigate, 2 yes it is an assumption that 2 Type 45’s will be at sea at any one time and that both will be with the carrier at all times.

            Depends what you are escorting against, but I was referring to a Type 45 so…. yeah. But hey a Type 26 isn’t designed to protect a convoy from a surface threat either, so you’re kind of going around in circles.

      • Thanks Daveyb.

        There’s lots of good UK kit in service or on the way (albeit with frustratingly slow delivery schedules in many cases) but I think my candidate for the most depressing aspect of UK home-grown military tech & associated industrial strategy would be how we seem to be leaving our radar competencies to wither on the vine, all the more frustrating given how good Sampson was for its time. Radar is critical and such a lead should have been built upon not squandered. And if T31 does end up getting a better radar than T26, well where’s the sense in that?

        • Because the NS100 was proposed by Thales as part of the Babcock bid together with its Tacticos CMS and Mirador E/O system. This is the most cost-effective way of procuring the total off-the-shelf package. You start specifying Artisan radars for the T31 and it will start costing you more. Remember this is the Dutch side of Thales, what used to be Hollandse Signaalapparaten (HSA), arguably historically the best and most successful naval radar house in the world. Going all the way back to the Type 82 destroyer, Marconi had a joint programme with HSA for what at the time was by far the most advanced air defence radar in the world. We pulled out and cancelled the T82 programme. The Dutch went ahead and ordered two Tromp class destroyers with that radar, no doubt pocketing all the Marconi contribution to the joint programme. Fantastic ships for the time. We briefly led the world again with Sampson, but are now watching others overtake us. The NS100/200 are brilliant radars by the way, although only a single face, mechanically scanned array.

          • Thanks Richard. I’m not knocking the T31 radar, more bemoaning the fact that the way more expensive frigate (T26) under current plans has the less capable radar.

      • So I presume that we will need to make a guide missile destroyer to replace type 45s? I was under the impression an AA version of the type 26 would be made to take on the role of air defence of the CSG.

        • BAe blame the lack of Sampson or flat panel development on the Government, yet the Dutch arm of Thales have been producing advanced and competitive radars for years and for many countries. BAe have become incredibly lazy in the radar department. They did develop a large flat panel array using the Sampson TRMs, which was comparable in size to the 20ft SPY6. But without any orders from the Navy, it went nowhere. Perhaps there is no radar development strategy for the T45, or perhaps there was, but it has all been spent on the engine fix?

          I can’t believe I’m saying this for a ship that’s equivalent in displacement to a WW2 light cruiser, but the T26 will be too small for a future dedicated AAW ship, if the missile count needs to double, or more electrical hungry weapon systems are included (laser and rail gun) where it may need two MT30 gensets along with four large diesels.

          I do expect to see a future AAW ship having flat panel AESA arrays, probably operating in the S band. It will still be necessary to have a radar that can operate over two distinct bands, one for longe range volume searching and a higher frequency for target identification and tracking. I would not be surprised to see either a mechanically rotating AESA or a three panel AESA mounted high on a mast operating in the X band, that watches the horizon. By having two radars that can operate over two distinct bands, not only do they not interfere with each other. But you can use one for dedicated long range volume searching and the higher frequency radar for medium range target identification and tracking. By using more than one band, it means the ship stands a better chance at detecting stealthy targets. Also if one system is damaged or goes U/S there will always be another radar available.

          As I have mentioned before, I think the next AAW destroyer will require its own organic AEW UAV, as this means it can engage targets beyond the horizon, especially if there’s no carrier on hand with AEW aircraft. But it also means it has more time to deal with a threat or a swarm of threats, especially if one of the counter air missiles misses and the threats are very high supersonic or even hypersonic. Therefore the ship will need a larger amount of hangar space to house not only a manned helicopter/vtol aircraft but also one or two large-ish VTOL UAVs. On the T26 this would take up the whole mission bay area, would the Navy require an AAW destroyer to have a multi-role mission bay as well a huge hangar?

          • Thanks DaveyB for such detailed insight. I must admit, I was always in favour of a new dedicated destroyer. When I heard the Type 4x program was just a development of the T26 in the AA role, I was confused and shocked. We should be aiming for a 8-10,000 ton destroyer that is equiped with hypersonic ASM as well as AA. T26 is just too small like you mentioned. I hope we see sense before we commit to this farce.

            Also, disappointed at BAE for falling behind in the radar development. Maybe they have gotten used to Leonardo and other companies making radar for their projects. I think we should have an in-house British team that partially or wholly develops our kit so as to not rely on others and risk falling behind. But I would love to see BAE constantly updating their kit working with our partners. Laziness in the lab, dooms the solider in the firing line.

          • The Italians are planning a new AAW destroyer type weighing in between 8 to 10K tonnes. Armed with Aster and packing Leonardo’s new Kronos AESA radar offerings. One mechanically rotating D band (old L band) and eight static arrays covering 360 degrees of arc, four in the Gulf/Hotel band (old C band) and four in the India band (old X band). Their latest Athena CMS will fuse data from all sets and present a single recognised surface and air picture. That should cover all bases. The individual elements of the Kronos family are already being tested on the latest version of the new PPA ships and their new LHD.

        • The T26 frigate design, may Not be a suitable design for a AAW destoryer, due to the shallow stern of this type of hull. A deeper stern would allow more ballast to counter-act the top weight of the front missile silo when full.
          An AAW destoryer will need a much bigger missile silo then T26 ASW ship.

          • Agreed. Hence I hope we go for a stealthier designed destroyer, perhaps name is Type 5X to coincide with the leap forward in tech. I think T26 for ASubW and Type 5X for AA and possibly AShipW. Zumwalt class is about 10,000 tons and is being retrofitted for hypersonics I believe. I think we should start work in this direction. The T26 is going to be a foreign sales success but it shouldn’t replace a real destroyer class.

    • SPY-6. Currently probably the most advance naval radar in the world. Scalable, so the Constellations will get three 9-module arrays each covering a 120 degree arc. The AB flight 3s will get the same radar but with greater number of modules in each array (16 I think). Personally, I cannot conceive how by the time the T26s come into service, they could still be equipped with ARTISAN when the rest of the world has moved over to AESA technology.

  4. 57mm gun
    RAM CIWS
    32 Type 41 VLS (ESSM / SM2 / ASROC)
    16 NSM AShMs
    2 SH60R (or one SH60 and one Firescout)
    2 Boatbays

      • Designed for a totally different requirement, and budget. And the US Navy have made a total mess of new Frigate procurement, little to be envious of here.

        • ASW specialists, eyeing the PLAN sub fleet. $750m each – somewhere between T26 and and T31 cost wise. Also less emphasis on offboard systems (no mission bay). They do have a sophisticated IEP CODLAG powertrain however, which is good for future direct energy weapons and so on.

    • I think there’s can track Base Balls at Mach one , whereas ours can track Cricket Balls at Mach Two ………… Might be wrong though.

    • Compared to the Arleigh Burkes the ship in general will be more radar stealthy. However, they do favour a single mast that carries a lot of nav radar plus comms. If they do use this, it looks quite delicate and susceptible to damage. Hopefully they will make sure the angles between the mast and the “boom/yard (not sure what they’re called these days?) are greater than or less than 90 degrees. If you look at a T45 all these angled junctions are designed to not be 90 degrees, as that makes a perfect reflector.

  8. Congress is now telling the USN to first conduct shore testing of the propulsion system. It doesnt want to be done over again as it was on the LCS prop system.

    They are also unsure that the estimated cost of the project are accurate and reasonable. Congress believes that once the US Defence Contractors get involved with supplying US Made parts as opposed to the current FREMM suppliers that prices will skyrocket above that of even the T26.

    • How bloody stupid. What’s the point on insisting on an existing, tried and tested hull and machinery design, only to then force the navy to build an expensive land-based test facility???

  9. If that CG image is accurate, that’s going to be quite the SSM load. I know the Slava class cruisers carry an equivalent amount, does anything else short of a Kirov do too?
    It does leave a rather strong indication of what the USN is expecting to face.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here