Usn Frigate Program

[Ol Paint]

Why you're bringing up nuclear capable yards in a thread about conventionally powered frigates is anybody's guess.  Presumably, by Barrow-on-Furness, you are referring to BAE Systems Submarines--a wholly owned subsidiary of BAE Systems, which is still a UK-headquartered defense contractor.  Hardly American ownership.  Although the USN and Electric Boat did bail out that yard for you once already.  That should be enough.

I really don't give a hoot whose equipment the UK buys. I do care when your "common sense" solutions seem to revolve around absorbing Uncle Sam's greenbacks to resurrect a UK zombie you've already killed at least twice.

Doug

[Ivanhoe]

FFNs are supposed to be classified.

[Ol Paint]

9 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

FFNs are supposed to be classified.

The black helicopters are incoming...

Doug

[lucklucky]

This getting quite bizarre, the USN frigates are from Fincantieri the biggest shipbuilding company in western hemisphere...so any alternative shipyard outside US it will be one of theirs. Italy most probably since outside Italy they build merchants and specialised ships, not naval ships.

https://www.fincantieri.com/en/group/world-presence/

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 2/2/2024 at 12:38 AM, Ol Paint said:

Why you're bringing up nuclear capable yards in a thread about conventionally powered frigates is anybody's guess.  Presumably, by Barrow-on-Furness, you are referring to BAE Systems Submarines--a wholly owned subsidiary of BAE Systems, which is still a UK-headquartered defense contractor.  Hardly American ownership.  Although the USN and Electric Boat did bail out that yard for you once already.  That should be enough.

I really don't give a hoot whose equipment the UK buys. I do care when your "common sense" solutions seem to revolve around absorbing Uncle Sam's greenbacks to resurrect a UK zombie you've already killed at least twice.

Doug

Im just illustrating a point, there is capacity in the world for the US to buy its ships  abroad, rather than having them home built. You dont just have a capacity problem for subsurface vessels, and you clearly have a one for surface vessels too. Not for the kind of force you seem to want. You are just going to be losing older ships at a rate faster than you can build them. This is going to become ever more apparent as you invest in the future in drone ships.

In the second world war, the USN was not fussy enough to get its escorts via reverse lend lease. They used 2 River class Frigates as part of the USN in WW2, presumably helping to inspire later Captain Class vessels. They also used a small number of Flower class corvettes IIRC. So this is nothing you havent done before.

The capacity is there, if the US military wants to grow its navy, it can easily leverage capacity abroad. The MOD have done that with our new fleet auxillaries, where we build half of them in Spain, and the rest at Harland and Wolf, helping leverage up capacity for the future. There was a stink about it, but getting the ships for the money at the right time, it was the only option they had.

BAE isnt really British anymore. I would argue it probably owns as much real estate in the US as the UK, its a multinational. That said, I certainly id read somewhere the Americans were looking to buy shares in the Barrow in Furness yard around the time of the Aukus deal IIRC. I cant find a link on it now, so perhaps it didnt come off.

 Maybe you think its a better idea to invest greenbacks to revive dead yards you cant keep in work after you clear the backlog, rather than investing in a loyal ally thats always has your back. However, considering you ARE already leveraging that foreign capacity for AUKUS for a vital foreign ally, and the design capacity for your SSBN's already, you would think this would commend itself for your own navy.

There you go, spare capacity. Will you use it? Of course not, because 'reasons'.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/23343488.work-begin-massive-new-glasgow-shipbuilding-factory/

 

[Ol Paint]

Nothing you're proposing does anything worthwhile to resolve the national security implications of offshoring.  Pardon me if I scoff at the proposal that the US could take advantage of the UK's "capacity" when the very next sentence admits the capacity doesn't even exist to build your own auxiliaries.  The loyal ally opted to build Spain, instead of hiring NASSCo to crank out some more Lewis and Clark T-AKEs, Supply T-AOEs, or John Lewis T-AOs.

Two River-class and 18 Flower-class reverse lend-lease vessels.  How impressive.  You do realize the USN had over 6,700 naval vessels in May 1945, right?  Besides, we gave the RN 50 four-stackers, first. 

Pouring greenbacks into domestic companies to expand existing facilities to bring throughput back up to the levels previously demonstrated by the Spruance, Ticonderoga, Kidd, Burke, Wasp, Nimitz, Los Angeles, Virginia, Perry, and other classes actually makes a lot more sense.  Exactly which yards do you think are dead in the US?  NASSCo, NNS, Ingalls, BIW, and GDEB are all still here and active.  The big yards adjusted/realigned/downsized to the "peace dividend," as has the supporting industries.  That is what needs reversal--and its primarily a programmatic and management issue. 

Buying British, Spanish, Italian, or Korean doesn't do jack to fix that fundamental issue.

Oh, and your link?

https://fox11online.com/news/local/united-states-navy-frigate-ships-fincantieri-marinette-marine-building-34-ribbon-cutting-shipyard-military-vessels-contractor

Doug

[sunday]

Last time I looked it up, Spain was allied to both UK and USA.

Australia bought some Spanish ships, that were build in Ozland too.

Edited February 6 by sunday

[Ol Paint]

47 minutes ago, sunday said:

Last time I looked it up, Spain was allied to both UK and USA.

Australia bought some Spanish ships, that were build in Ozland too.

I know, but Stuart's couching it in terms of a particularly close relationship between the UK and US that justifies preferential treatment at the trough of USD.

Doug

[Stuart Galbraith]

Look, let me repeat myself, because clearly something got lost in translation. I think its really very simple.

The alternatives are this. Maybe there is other alternatives, but I dont personally see any.

A invest in the yards to make good on the platforms you are so rapidly divesting yourself of, that are cold war legacy platforms. They are wearing out fast.

B Leverage yards abroad to provide the capacity, till you can generate it yourself. Which considering how much you let slide in the war on terror, is going to take a couple of decades at least.

C Do nothing, and watch your navy shrink, at a time when you are beset by a need for a larger one, in the North Atlantic, the med, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Western Pacific.  And Japan. And the Carribean.  And the Baltic.

You are already buying foreign designs in, whether its Italian frigates, or our designs for missile compartments. So, why not go the next step, buy them fully or partially built in other peoples yards? Im not sure why this is contentious. A very large percent of your KC767's would have been brought in from abroad, from foreign suppliers, and assembled at Boeing. Why are ships so different?

The truth is its not about ensuring capacity. If that was the concern, you would have retained it and never let it go away. The concern is ensuring senators safeguard their jobs, because they believe safeguarding jobs against foreign competition is the only way to retain votes. Maybe you think that makes sense. Personally I think watching your navy atrophy just so you can demonstrate some apparent autonomy, when you demonstrate it in no other area, is deeply questionable.

As far as buying ships in the UK, as far as Frigates we clearly have emerging capacity, and as far as the pound collapsing, you would actually get a very good deal at this point. And as BAE is as much an American company as British one at this point, you could even make the claim you are buying American. But you could just as easily have bought them off the peg in Italy. Their yards are/were propped up by EU subsidy, im sure you would get an excellent deal there too.

 

[Dawes]

Greece is looking at building a modified Constellation-class frigate. Any advantages over the standard FREMM?

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/naval-weapons/latest/greece-announces-plans-for-joint-production-of-constellation-class-frigates

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Dawes said:

Greece is looking at building a modified Constellation-class frigate. Any advantages over the standard FREMM?

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/naval-weapons/latest/greece-announces-plans-for-joint-production-of-constellation-class-frigates

US combat system and other US components, presumably (Aegis vs PAAMs, standard vs Aster, etc). I’m not sure what the motivation for that is; I suspect it is political vs technical. Perhaps they think the U.S. is less likely to be influenced by Turkey in the future.

[Wouter2]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

US combat system and other US components, presumably (Aegis vs PAAMs, standard vs Aster, etc). I’m not sure what the motivation for that is; I suspect it is political vs technical. Perhaps they think the U.S. is less likely to be influenced by Turkey in the future.

They may also want to curry favour with the US (both camps there ) by "buying American". Might pay to have (much) better relations with US than Turkey does. Maybe exactly because they fear that otherwise the US could get closer to Turkey again, or simply not be motivated to intervene in any way (with Trump especially, you never know, if Turkey offers him something he may go for it).

[TrustMe]

13 hours ago, Wouter2 said:

They may also want to curry favour with the US (both camps there ) by "buying American". Might pay to have (much) better relations with US than Turkey does. Maybe exactly because they fear that otherwise the US could get closer to Turkey again, or simply not be motivated to intervene in any way (with Trump especially, you never know, if Turkey offers him something he may go for it).

Turkey needs NATO. The only reason why the Turkish armed forces stayed out of all those Miiddle Eastern wars (and their was a lot of them) was because no one wanted Turkey to invoke article 5 of the NATO charter and end up fighting all of NATO not just Turkey.

[Mistral]

4 hours ago, TrustMe said:

Turkey needs NATO. The only reason why the Turkish armed forces stayed out of all those Miiddle Eastern wars (and their was a lot of them) was because no one wanted Turkey to invoke article 5 of the NATO charter and end up fighting all of NATO not just Turkey.

Turkey is occuping parts of 3 of their neighbours and actively claiming parts of 3 others, no one is ever conteplating attacking them ever. Besides the US that is, if you belive the word on the street over there.

[bojan]

"It is different"

[Rick]

Out of mild curiosity, why did Turkey join N.A.T.O.?

[urbanoid]

29 minutes ago, Rick said:

Out of mild curiosity, why did Turkey join N.A.T.O.?

They joined in 1952, 3 years after NATO was formed. They bordered USSR in the Caucasus, the Russians also had designs on Turkish straits since tsarist times, so it was only logical to join. 

The country was also westernizing since it's inception in 1923 - I use that word as there was no real 'mental' continuity with the Ottoman Empire. Secularism was an enforced policy since the very beginning, they also changed the alphabet from the one based on Arabic to the Latin one. For new Turkish elites Arabs were the traitorous dogs who stabbed them in the back during the war. The military had a special position since then and it lasted until Erdogan, they were the guardians of a secular state. It was only logical for such a country to try to join Western institutions.

Edited February 7 by urbanoid

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, Mistral said:

Turkey is occuping parts of 3 of their neighbours and actively claiming parts of 3 others, no one is ever conteplating attacking them ever. Besides the US that is, if you belive the word on the street over there.

Like a lot of other failed empires (us Brits included) the Turks seek to re-control parts of what was once the Ottoman Empire.

[Ol Paint]

Follow on to the earlier story, now the Constellations are delayed 3 years.

https://news.usni.org/2024/04/02/constellation-frigate-delivery-delayed-3-years-says-navy

Doug

[shep854]

11 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

Follow on to the earlier story, now the Constellations are delayed 3 years.

https://news.usni.org/2024/04/02/constellation-frigate-delivery-delayed-3-years-says-navy

Doug

At least tougher survivability standards were part of the US requirements, and not just more gadgets and widgets.

[Cajer]

Hopefully they take this chance to add on more VLS cells.  32 cells just isn't enough for the Pacific theatre and even the Arabian coast now.  Especially with NSM being too short ranged to engage Chinese surface forces due to their YJ-18's  (carried on their new ships) having at least 50% more range, so it's really only useful against unescorted transports.  More VLS would allow carry of MST and or LRASM which would allow these ships to actually use their offensive weapons unlike NSM.

[bfng3569]

4 hours ago, shep854 said:

At least tougher survivability standards were part of the US requirements, and not just more gadgets and widgets.

Was going to post something similar to Cajer in regards to VLS cells, but also, they may want to rethink the lack of gadgets and widgets....

Saw this article this morning, some interesting thoughts..

https://www.twz.com/sea/the-compelling-case-for-arming-u-s-navy-warships-with-drone-swarms

 

[Cajer]

21 minutes ago, bfng3569 said:

Was going to post something similar to Cajer in regards to VLS cells, but also, they may want to rethink the lack of gadgets and widgets....

Saw this article this morning, some interesting thoughts..

https://www.twz.com/sea/the-compelling-case-for-arming-u-s-navy-warships-with-drone-swarms

 

Small drones aren't very useful as an offensive weapon navally.  Due to long ranges, low speeds, and the fact that ciws and or guns on ships are very good at bringing those down.

There is an application for larger drones (1-2000lbs) serving as distributed ACWACS for ships operating out side CBGs or as ECM platforms to help defend the ship against attack.   Here something tethered to the ship would make allot of sense, giving "unlimited" loiter time and allowing a much lighter drone or larger sensors suite. Those however don't need to be stored in VLS and would need to be recoverable and optimally self landing perhaps on the helo deck.

[Josh]

49 minutes ago, Cajer said:

Hopefully they take this chance to add on more VLS cells.  32 cells just isn't enough for the Pacific theatre and even the Arabian coast now.  Especially with NSM being too short ranged to engage Chinese surface forces due to their YJ-18's  (carried on their new ships) having at least 50% more range, so it's really only useful against unescorted transports.  More VLS would allow carry of MST and or LRASM which would allow these ships to actually use their offensive weapons unlike NSM.

It is too late to change the design without more delays. Perhaps the second batch.

[Cajer]

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

It is too late to change the design without more delays. Perhaps the second batch.

I would say a delay is better than having it in its current state.  With a 3 year delay currently (doubling the original time to build the ship), I'm not sure it would be more than a year or so.  It wouldn't even be able to stay on station off Yemen for a significant amount of time let alone operate in the Pacific.

Edited April 5 by Cajer