What will be the USN's next frigate? Who should win the FFG(X) program?

So, what's the source for the type 26 being allowed into the project? This is the first I've heard about it and I want to do some more reading.

But isn't it more expensive?

There was a link someone had about it bneing able to join during the next stage via Defense News, but damned if I can find it.

It's extremely unlikely, it's more expensive and possibly in excess of requirement.

We don't know. The first ships are always more expensive. But T26 is getting a larger run of ships than FREMM is, so the price may overtake it. It also is more compatible and uses many US systems that are already integrated into the design (Mk45 Mod 4, Phalanx, Mk41s), so it may be cheaper for the US than having to pay all that for the FREMM.

Depends on what's offered for equipment and since we're yet to see a formal offer, I wouldn't yet call it off based on price.

They can respond to the eventual RFP. But they weren't awarded design contracts so they'd have to pay for design costs themselves.

FFG(X) won't have Phalanx, it'll just have RAM. It's also hypothetically not using the MK45, though honestly I don't find it credible that the Navy would get rid of the five inch in favor of a 57mm if say, the F-110 was chosen.

Attached: FFG(X) requirements.png (1072x780, 214K)

So when will the U.S navy get a replacement for its shitty destroyers?

Attached: 1461015874561.jpg (1944x2592, 1.61M)

>any link?
>responding to a post with a link

Attached: 1542039202321.jpg (1200x839, 185K)

The U.S should buy Korean.

Attached: SejongTheChad.jpg (1080x474, 276K)

LSC RFI went out like a week ago. Responses are due by April. God knows what it'll look like. It's not a Burke replacement though but a Tico replacement, they need something that can support command staff like the Tico can.

Need to replace both desu.

With the UK, Australia, and Canada all getting them, parts commonality would bring in that sweet sweet mass production bonuses on spreading fixed costs out over multiple platforms.

Attached: C8lYGhVXYAAnsD8.jpg (1200x900, 181K)

>Samsung
No

Type 26 I don't think is a mature enough design for this competition. All of the other competitors have been in production long enough that their manufacturers know how they tick. The USN wants to push these ships out as fast as they can with no hassle.

Plus most of the other competitors are being built in large numbers as well.

Seriously, when will the US Navy get rid of tripod masts and adopt the integrated mast master race?

Hyundai actually

All 3 of those have significantly different equipment sets, the parts commonality is greatly exaggerated. Just look at how different Italian and French FREMM are.

Attached: FREMM1_1.jpg (800x496, 60K)

Yeah, an American Type 26 would need new sensors, electronics, weaponry, and to replace the sea ceptor cells. You're really just buying the frame and the engine with these kind of deals.

Why can't we buy the Frog design?

We've already had total Mk41 replacement for sea ceptor, in addition to Aegis FCS integration and possibly Lockheed's LRDR on the Candian variant, I think you can argue there's already a decent amount of US themed interaction.

The Canadian variant is being pitched by lockheed after all

>All 3 of those have significantly different equipment sets, the parts commonality is greatly exaggerated

Not even slightly. They're all using the same base hull, same hull components (all the quieting tech), same engines, same propshafts, same energy generation, same mission bay hardware, same sonars, same hangar design, same generators, same silos (Mk41), same gun, same Phalanx kit and likely a thousand things down to stuff as mundane as windows, doors, floor panels, canteen freezer units...

>Type 26
Oh boy am I ready

Attached: images (33).jpg (787x390, 49K)

And yet It doesn't exist
Only 24 silos though
Also, we all know what "Mission Bay" means. They tried to pull that shit on the lcs, we all know how it turned out

>And yet It doesn't exist
Except it does. What you meant to say is it isn't in the water yet.

>Only 24 silos though
72 actually. So I'm already getting a good sense of how little you know about this ship.

>Also, we all know what "Mission Bay" means. They tried to pull that shit on the lcs, we all know how it turned out
Except it's completely different from the LCS one. That was modules that chop and change and were far too complicated. The mission bay is something entirely different. It's a large compartment with large doors to act as a flexible space for stores, containerised systems like the ones the army uses, additional boats or additional helos, among other things.

But 48 of those VLS silos are dedicated anti air as opposed to the multi purpose Mk41s which it only has 24 of.

Because Sylver A43/50 that can only fire Aster as so much more multipurpose, right?

By your logic the FREMM you're touting has zero silos then, since it hasn't got any multipurpose silos at all.

Not that guy, should have made the distinction. Should have read the entire reply chain.
I'm all for the T26

>they use the same hull and propulsion
>trying to count equipment that is shared on every FFG(X) contender as Type 26 unique

Basically you are arguing in favor of the FREMM.

48 CAMM tubes are not equivalent to 48 Mk41 or Sylver cells.

>An Anglosphere fleet

Attached: images.jpg (225x225, 8K)

[Citation fucking needed] on FREMM having 48 Mk41s.

Non-sequitor. The point was that UK/US/AUS/CAN sharing the same basic design would help a lot, given how close those nations are.

Other than FREMM, none of the others have any commonality with allies at all. And FREMM only has commonality with two worthwhile allies, who use a lot less ships than the T26 will be, and has less commonality with US systems across those fleets.

Except FREMM doesn't have 48 Mk41s and Sylvers are notoriously one of the least flexible silos in the world.

A43/A50 = Aster only.
A70 = SCALP only.

Thats your fucking lot.

So the T26 with 48x CAMM silos, and 24x Mk41s, is a LOT more flexible than the FREMM with 16x Aster and 16x SCALP, in addition to having far more munitions. Something like 80% more, and thats including the Exocet canisters.

American FREMM would have 32 Mk41 cells, which because they would hold CAMM in quadpacks is the equivalent of 128 CAMM tubes.

Yes, CAMM is an ESSM contemporary.

>So the T26 with 48x CAMM silos, and 24x Mk41s

12x, not 24x

>The point was that UK/US/AUS/CAN sharing the same basic design would help a lot.

The hull itself is one of the least expensive parts of a ship.

>A43/A50 = Aster only.
>A70 = SCALP only.

A43 = Aster 15
A50 = Aster 15, Aster 30, CAMM, CAMM-ER
A70 = Aster 15, Aster 30, SCALP

So you're comparing "What American FREMM would have" to "What British T26 has" why? The comment thread was on base FREMM/base T26. The USN version of both would be equivilently armed.

The USN isn't purchasing CAMM. They'd put the same silos on whatever ship they get.

No, it's 24x. You can fucking count them if you want. Pic related.

It's a lot more than the hull. Engines, generators, ASW quieting components (which generally are very bespoke) just for a start. The cranes in the mission bay, hangar/flight deck systems, there's a lot that becomes useful to have cheaper. Unless the US wants to change all that too then those will be big gains for 4 big allies. And I suspect the US would just keep the MT30s, since Zumwalt and one of the LCS already use it. So they gain commonality with their own fleet as well.

Attached: Type 26 Global Combat Ship.png (1200x1198, 789K)

Frankly it would be a solid option, for no small part because it is smaller and lighter than the italian and will avoid the feature creep and skyrocketing price that would turn the Italian FREMM or the Type 26 into a near-destroyer, which will cut into other future programs.

If I had my say, anything heavier than 5000 tons should be out of the competition.

CAMM cannot be fired from Sylver.

>So you're comparing "What American FREMM would have" to "What British T26 has" why? The comment thread was on base FREMM/base T26. The USN version of both would be equivilently armed.
>The USN isn't purchasing CAMM. They'd put the same silos on whatever ship they get.

No, you are trying to argue that 48 individual CAMM tubes is more versatile than 12 additional Sylver or Mk41. The USN version of both the FREMM or Type 26 will have 32 Mk41, which is why I used that number for comparison.

The manufacturer of Sylver disagrees with you.

naval-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/sylver-multimissile-vertical-launcher.pdf

>No, you are trying to argue that 48 individual CAMM tubes is more versatile than 12 additional Sylver or Mk41.

Except I've never fucking once said that. The entire argument, if you follow it, was about the flexibility of CAMM+Mk41 vs Sylver only.

They advertise it with it as a possibility because they manufacture both of them.

It has never been integrated, and I challenge you to show a single source showing a Sylver silo firing a CAMM missile, or a confirmation of someone funding and completing an integration.

its 24 mk 41s on the RN design, dont think anyones proposing a downgrade there

which would give it the same max load out of CAMM as a type 26. and while CAMM is similar to ESSM its a little bit better

>most capable of the 5 ships the USN gave design contracts to
>has Lockheed backing it up

FREMM is the likely winner at this point in time.

Attached: DxJ6aoFWsAABNB7.jpg (800x538, 87K)

>and while CAMM is similar to ESSM its a little bit better

Not really. Old ESSMs, yes. The newer ones have brought it up to par with CAMM with an active seeker on them now since Block 2, and have a slightly greater range.

>No, you are trying to argue that 48 individual CAMM tubes is more versatile than 12 additional Sylver or Mk41

If Mk41, take the 12x MK41s.

If Sylver, take the 48x CAMMs. Sylver is shit. You'd only get 12 SAMs in there. A quarter of the number. If they were A50s then yes you could put Aster-30s, but the Mk41s other than the CAMM handle that anyway for SM2, SM6 or whatever.

I actually misread that post and thought it was claiming 48 CAMM would take 24 Mk41, as if it were dual packed and not quad.

Slyver vs Mk41 is not the comparison being made, both can quad pack CAMM. You would use the one that employs your missiles in use.

>It has never been integrated, and I challenge you to show a single source showing a Sylver silo firing a CAMM missile, or a confirmation of someone funding and completing an integration.
This is totally different to saying it cannot be fired.

CAMM has only been fired from refit Type 23 frigates so far, and that was only a year or so ago. You are going to have to wait just a bit.

>The newer ones have brought it up to par with CAMM with an active seeker on them now since Block 2, and have a slightly greater range.
No, because ESSM is still depended fire control radars until terminal.

CAMM is not.

You do know the illuminators are for terminal, not mid course right?

How does it compare with the Renhai?

Completely different class of ships.

Chink Type 055 Renhai is a CRUISER.

Anglo Type 26 / French FREMM / F-110 is a Big Frigate / Small Destroyer.

>Also it's a very pretty ship.
Would look like a proper navy ship in grey, too...

Attached: patrolfrigate.jpg (792x499, 80K)

USN should never ever buy foreign designs nor ships.

why does marsoc need a ffg tho?

>honestly I don't find it credible that the Navy would get rid of the five inch in favor of a 57mm
The last FFG class didn't have a 5 inch

Like apples and oranges, you retarded curry nigger.

The Aussie version has 32xMk41, 8 Harpoon and AEGIS.

>Have to bribe to steal FREMM technology and sell it back to *merishit at thrice the price tag

Attached: lockheeb martin.png (300x100, 8K)

OHP's never really missed having a novelty 5" to clean.

Lol its their fault they cannot compete with Renhai.

why would anyone get the type 26 when fremm exists?

fremm is basicly the f16 of the navy world

The F110 already has it though. If it’s already in the design might as well keep it.

Wait what, did they manage to export more than those two to North African countries that the French decided they couldn't afford, yet?

Last I heard, the Egyptians decided to buy German instead of expanding their FREMM order
> navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/january/6726-germany-approves-meko-200-frigate-export-to-egypt.html

Even France has cut their order from 17 to 8 FREMM, and is instead pinning their export hopes on the ~4,000t lightweight frigate they're buying now to make up frigate numbers
> defensenews.com/naval/2016/10/18/france-unveils-new-fti-frigate-designed-for-the-french-navy-and-export/

It isn't necessarily better though. The Mk 110 57 mm gun is designed with dual feed ammunition with smart air burst rounds to engage UAVs and AShMs. Add in the much lower weight and deck penetration of a 57mm gun , and the USN is likely to prioritise the versatility over shore bombardment capability.