Navys New Constellation Class Frigate Is A Mess

>speeds cut back to help mitigate unexpected growth in their overall weight. The Navy and shipbuilder Fincantieri Marinette Marine otherwise continue to grapple with the impacts of major changes in the ship's configuration compared to its Franco-Italian Fregata Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM) parent design. The entire purpose of basing the Constellations on an existing in-production frigate was to help reduce costs, delivery times, and risk, but they have shaped up to be larger, heavier, and now years behind schedule.
>New details about weight growth, design instability, and other issues with the Constellation class frigate came in a report the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, published yesterday. Just last week, the Navy awarded a new contract to Fincantieri Marinette Marine, valued at just over $1.04 billion, for another two of the frigates. The service now has six Constellations on order, the first of which is currently under construction.
>At the same time, the Navy has already confirmed that it now the first Constellation class frigate may not be delivered until 2029, three years behind schedule. This would also be around nine years after Fincantieri Marinette Marine received its initial contract for the frigates and some seven years after the start of construction of the USS Constellation.
Another LCS?:
https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-new-constellation-class-frigate-is-a-mess

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Delays in early production on a next-gen frigateare vastly different from a fuindamentally flawed concept like LCS.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >next-gen frigate
      The FREMM has been in commission since 2012

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. but the FREMM is not the Constellation.
        The systems are different, the hull is lengthened, the list of changes is prety extensive.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >concept like LCS
      There us nothing flawed about the LCS. The US and many other navies have had LCS for many decades, such as Thor Tarawa. Wasp, America, and the USCG fleet, and LHAs/LHDs are hugy important to naval doctrine.
      The problem with the Zumwalts was the ships, they were experimental and not well made by any stretch

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wow an actual AI post.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        LHA/LHDs have nothing to do with LCS

        Neither does zumwalt.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >LCS
          >Zumwalt
          https://www.surfpac.navy.mil/Ships/USS-Zumwalt-DDG-1000/About/
          >is tailored for sustained operations in the littorals and land attack
          Littoral==uncomfortably near dry land
          Combat==bangbang punchypunchy
          Ship==floaty mcboaty propeller tub

          Wow an actual AI post.

          Don't be jealous, Rajeev

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God job confirming for the entire thread you're simply a moron.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Argue with the US Navy about LCS, not me, since you know more about it than they do

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The US navy doesn't consider anything besides the independence-class and he freedom-class to be LCS boats.

                Zumwalt, Wasp, and America aren't classified by the USN as LCS's.

                Now go have a nice day, thanks.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            LCS is a specific program, it refers to the Freedom and Independence classes. Likewise, MPF means the M10 Booker, even though the Army has had vehicles for over 100 years that are mobile, protected, and have firepower, some of which have more of all three than the M10.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            AI confirmed

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The concept of LCS is fine, it's the procurement and development process that's fricked. The Navy needs a lot of ships that can do Coast Guard-type things on the other side of the globe without needing to assign a full-on warship. With Zumwalts costing $3.3B and new-production Burkes at $2.5B, it's not an effective use of resources to assign them to port calls or protecting shipping lanes from pirates with rafts and muskets. Using the same hull to replace a variety of aging support craft is just good sense.

      Where the Navy fricked up was with their retirement for 24-hour module interchanges. There's absolutely zero reason to hotswap modules, no real capability would be lost if repurposing a hull required a six month refit. The other huge problem was buying both hull designs, that just means that you double the cost of retrofits for all the teething problems.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The concept of LCS is fine
        It was garbage from the start.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You only hate it because it's called the littoral COMBAT ship and it's not designed for combat. Let it go anon, it's just a name.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The concept of LCS is fine
        No. Making 50knots boat wasn't fine concept. It's incredibly difficult to satisfy demand and that drags thosunds problems with it.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I smell a lie. It’s widely understood the LCSs had so many early problems because of major design changes being made by the Navy during construction — and they’re doing literally the same thing again? I don’t believe it, someone is fibbing.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/h8QaYgC.jpeg

      I'm unsurprised and infuriated by this news

      There's nothing wrong with the Italian design, they're a first class navy themselves, just fricking use it as-is
      It's not a Burke, it's explicitly supposed to be a smaller cheaper vessel that can still do most tasks and free up the big boys for the ones they're needed in

      Holy frick

      It really smells like willful sabotage at this point.

      >t. Taiwanese whose military leadership has some chinese anuslickers who try to frick with our military using similar plausible deniability crap

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm unsurprised and infuriated by this news

    There's nothing wrong with the Italian design, they're a first class navy themselves, just fricking use it as-is
    It's not a Burke, it's explicitly supposed to be a smaller cheaper vessel that can still do most tasks and free up the big boys for the ones they're needed in

    Holy frick

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There's nothing wrong with the Italian design
      We need a ship that can operate in the Pacific and use advanced US armaments, not a boat to pick up brownoids adrift in the Mediterranean.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is also used by the French, mouthbreather.

        https://i.imgur.com/zrZGKWx.jpeg

        Lmao, Western trannavies can't even figure out how to build frigates anymore, meanwhile:

        >chink shill

        https://i.imgur.com/xQ4XmxW.jpeg

        >Each Constellation-class frigate is estimated to cost around $1.7 billion to $2 billion.
        >Each Sejong the Great-class destroyer is estimated to cost around $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion.
        Literally just end it already.

        >asiatic shill

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How much of that $2 billion per ship do you pocket, israelite shill?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pathetic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            enough to incentivize even more asian brain drain lmoa. everyone wants to work in our defense industry

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sejong the Great-class Destroyers (Republic of Korea Navy)
          >Displacement: Approximately 7,600 tons
          >Length: 166.4 meters (546 ft)
          >Beam: 21.4 meters (70 ft)
          >Propulsion: COGOG (Combined Gas and Gas) system, 2 LM2500+ gas turbines for high speed, 2 LM2500 gas turbines for cruise
          >Speed: Over 30 knots
          .Armament:
          >1 x SPY-1D(V) Aegis radar system
          >128 x Vertical Launching System (VLS) cells for:
          >SM-2MR Block IIIA/B surface-to-air missiles
          >SM-6 Dual Role Missile
          >SSM-700K Haengmok (Hyunmoo-2) land-attack cruise missiles
          >ASROC (Anti-Submarine Rocket) and VL-ASROC
          >SYLVER A50 for Aster 15/30 missiles (in planned upgrades)
          >1 x 127mm MK45 Mod 4 naval gun
          >2 x 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS
          >6 x torpedo tubes for MK 46 or MK 54 torpedoes
          .Crew: Approximately 300
          Constellation-class Guided Missile Frigates (United States Navy)
          >Displacement: Approximately 4,500 tons
          >Length: 509 feet (155 meters)
          >Beam: 58 feet (18 meters)
          >Propulsion: Electric propulsion with four GE LM2500+G4 gas turbines
          >Speed: Over 30 knots
          >Armament:
          >1 x AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)
          >32 x MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) cells for:
          >Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
          >Standard Missile 2 (SM-2)
          >Standard Missile 6 (SM-6)
          >Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)
          >Tomahawk cruise missile
          >Future Vertical Launch (FVL) systems
          >1 x 57mm Mk110 gun
          >2 x 30mm RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) CIWS
          >2 x triple torpedo tubes for MK 54 torpedoes
          >Crew: Approximately 280

          You would be a fool not to choose the former over the latter.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lmao
            >Destroyer vs Frigate
            if i want a destroyer i will take the Arleigh Burke. asiaticbro if you want to shill you have to understand about the thing you're shilling first

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, but the frigate is just as expensive as a full-fledged Aegis warship, so what's the point?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA
                You are comparing Korean money to US money 1 for 1?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Provide the figures before making such a bold claim good anon.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The point is a Frigate can free up larger more capable Destroyers. Being smaller makes them less crew demanding which is great when you are struggling to fully crew deployed vessels.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Being smaller makes them less crew demanding

                Sejong the Great-class Destroyers (Republic of Korea Navy)
                >Displacement: Approximately 7,600 tons
                >Length: 166.4 meters (546 ft)
                >Beam: 21.4 meters (70 ft)
                >Propulsion: COGOG (Combined Gas and Gas) system, 2 LM2500+ gas turbines for high speed, 2 LM2500 gas turbines for cruise
                >Speed: Over 30 knots
                .Armament:
                >1 x SPY-1D(V) Aegis radar system
                >128 x Vertical Launching System (VLS) cells for:
                >SM-2MR Block IIIA/B surface-to-air missiles
                >SM-6 Dual Role Missile
                >SSM-700K Haengmok (Hyunmoo-2) land-attack cruise missiles
                >ASROC (Anti-Submarine Rocket) and VL-ASROC
                >SYLVER A50 for Aster 15/30 missiles (in planned upgrades)
                >1 x 127mm MK45 Mod 4 naval gun
                >2 x 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS
                >6 x torpedo tubes for MK 46 or MK 54 torpedoes
                .Crew: Approximately 300
                Constellation-class Guided Missile Frigates (United States Navy)
                >Displacement: Approximately 4,500 tons
                >Length: 509 feet (155 meters)
                >Beam: 58 feet (18 meters)
                >Propulsion: Electric propulsion with four GE LM2500+G4 gas turbines
                >Speed: Over 30 knots
                >Armament:
                >1 x AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)
                >32 x MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) cells for:
                >Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
                >Standard Missile 2 (SM-2)
                >Standard Missile 6 (SM-6)
                >Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)
                >Tomahawk cruise missile
                >Future Vertical Launch (FVL) systems
                >1 x 57mm Mk110 gun
                >2 x 30mm RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) CIWS
                >2 x triple torpedo tubes for MK 54 torpedoes
                >Crew: Approximately 280

                You would be a fool not to choose the former over the latter.

                >Crew: Approximately 300
                >Crew: Approximately 280

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >FFG 62 crew size is limited to an estimated 193 officers and enlisted sailors with an additional 27 personnel that serve in the embarked aviation detachment

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Doesn't make them cheaper to build or deploy. Not when the Navy (tm) is running the game.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not about cost, its about freeing up larger Destroyers from roles that can be carried out by smaller Frigates

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Crew size is more a function of the number and complexity of subsystems and of damage control requirements than of ship size. A giant container ship can have a crew of less than 30 people.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes a larger ship can hold more systems and capabilities making it more crew demanding. That doesnt change the fact the Navy needs to free up its Destroyers with more Frigates

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It shouldn't be. If it is that's on shitty US shipyards.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            : Approximately 4,500 tons
            About 7,200 tons
            >Crew: Approximately 280
            About 200 will be the crew size

            The USN should have built more DDG51 class ships, instead of these FFG things.
            FFG was supposed to cost 2/3 the price and have 1/3 the VLS. It is also slower than the DDG51 class. Historically, frigates are supposed to be faster.
            After everything is done. These FFG will probably be the same price and still 1/3 the VLS.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The Navy missed its recruiting goal for enlisted sailors by approximately 7,000 sailors; its gap at sea among junior sailors is at 22,000. A recent report on the Navy’s Health of the Force Survey found that two of every five enlisted sailors, up to E-6, reported experiencing severe or extreme stress.
              Who's going to crew your DDG-51s when the Navy is already struggling fo fill what they already have.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The crew have stress due to the cuts in training, maintenance, and also the USN wanting to keep them at sea more.
                USN needs to do more home time, maintenance, and training... and then people might want to join and stay due to less stress. Obviously, treating people like shit, shitting on white men through woke shit and DEI promotions, and bad/ short training will cause recruitment issues and stress. Treat people good and give them a good environment to work, then problems solved. The USN is probably not going to do that, so good luck to them trying to maintain numbers.
                BTW, the size of the Navy was originally going to be cut, but now the rulers want it expanded. The USN cannot buy DDG and aircraft at WalMart. The USN cannot force people to join, but I'm sure they would like to.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The USN cannot force people to join
                Bruh have ever heard of the draft? It's 100% legal.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >shitting on white men through woke shi
                brown

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You just made me realize all new recruits are Zoomers.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Our last two classes of frigates (the Knox- and Oliver Hazard Perry-classes) were respectively 5 1/2 and 2 knots slower than contemporaneous destroyers.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is the asiaticshill so good at posting fake information you can disapprove with 30 seconds on Google?

            >Displacement: Approximately 4,500 tons
            Wrong, it's ~7,300 tons
            >Length: 509 feet (155 meters)
            496 feet
            >Beam: 58 feet (18 meters)
            65 feet
            >AN/SPY-6(V)1
            It's getting the SPY-6(V)3 not (V)1.
            >Crew: Approximately 280
            176 enlisted with 24 officers for 200 total.

            Also the 2ndary sensors on the constellation-class are much better and newer. CAPTAS-4 and the underwater warfare suite as well as the electronic warfare capabilities are miles beyond the south Korean destroyers.

            Not to mention the constellation gets AEGIS baseline 10. I'm pretty sure the south Korean ships are using AEGIS baseline 7, a much older version with far less capability. For example it can't do both ballistic missile search/track while ALSO doing traditional local air defense search and track. It has to change operational modes and can't do both simultaneously, unlike more modern AEGIS systems.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >It has to change operational modes and can't do both simultaneously
              This is also why traditionally Aegis ships would get deployed in pairs at a minimum as one would always have the ballistic search and track going while the other would be on local air defense mode.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They can already do all that moron.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the entire point was to save cost by using an off-the-shelf design and then modifying it. The navy has flipped that on its head. That's why this is so moronic

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's still a massive cost savings, a ground up fresh design would've taken longer and cost more.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not him but the USN version has less than 20% commonality with the original

            It's basically a new design at this point

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No, it's not. If you think a new design is faster or cheaper you haven't been paying attention.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's why the current constellation-class only has ~15% commonality with the FREMM.

            It's been modified for pacific operations and survivability in a real fight.

            Not him but the USN version has less than 20% commonality with the original

            It's basically a new design at this point

            The USN was shocked by the lack of DC on the FREMMs. That's the major component of the redesign.

            Was there no better ship to use as a base design?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Was there no better ship to use as a base design?

              The americans dediced to redesign the entire hull because it didn't have enough bulkheads. Thats the official explanation. Its the R&D grift scheme again.

              So calling this an Italian design is wrong, it is a new American design that happens to look like the original design. BTW that 57 mm does not have water cooling so it is good for a few dozen shots, then its out for an hour. The 57 mm MK1, in widespread Swedish use, was watercooled and put on 150 ton patrol boats. Deleting the water cooling raised the rate of fire by 10% but cut massively into burst and sustained fire but Bofors marketing thought it was a good idea because number goes up.

              Now it is the main arnament of what by displacement should be considered a light cruiser, just a couple of thousand tons short of a Tico. Its the same gun that was on the undergunned LCS which has 40% of the displacement of a Constellation.

              America is simply too corrupt and too incompetent to do large projects now. I would wager that the Constellation class is canceled after 0-5 ships and another superfrigate design replaces it, until that one also fails. Meanwhile there will be calls for more money for them programs.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >America is simply too corrupt and too incompetent to do large projects now
                Congress's duty for oversight is basically dead since they nowadays just do insider trading, and since everyone does it the FBI allows it, so they're in on the grift too.
                It only took 100 years for every reform from the Teapot Dome Scandal to be undone.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No, the FREMM was the best option, the only other option the could've been considered would have been F100. You would've still run into the same problems as the Constellation.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Then why did you order a new class of frigates based on the Italian one, that is supposedly for picking browns???

        With the N. Constellation class you Americans lost your rights to hate on European projects that bloated into something else, since clearly you are not immune to this either.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's why the current constellation-class only has ~15% commonality with the FREMM.

          It's been modified for pacific operations and survivability in a real fight.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You people keep repeating this but this makes USN sound absolutely braindead.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The USN was shocked by the lack of DC on the FREMMs. That's the major component of the redesign.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bit overblowing it but yeah, French and Italian ships design simply ignores the last layer of the penetration onion, meaning they rely on active defenses to do their jobs.

                >Can’t build more Virginia class Subs under AUKUS agreement
                >completely screws up Zumwalt program. Will take another decade before Hypersonics are battle-ready on ship
                >Littoral ships are cracking, can’t fix problems
                >Shipyards throughout the US have closed. High turnover and financial problems are making problem worse
                Putting your head in the sand isn’t going to change the fact that the US has a vital industry in trouble, and needs to find solutions to alleviate it.

                >Can’t build more Virginia class Subs under AUKUS agreement
                What?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Congress just announced that due to budget restrictions, they can only purchase one sub/ year instead of the two which is necessary to match the AUKUS agreement timeline.
                The Virginia Class Sub deliveries are already late by 2 years. The USS Idaho was supposed to be commissioned this March, now it’s slated for later 2025.
                Because the navy and shipyards are so poorly managed, they’re basically sailing into another disastrous program where they cannot match their goals.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Congress just announced that due to budget restrictions
                Then post the source you fricking moron.

                Google shows nothing lately for Virginia-class production news.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Lawmakers raised concerns with Navy leaders this week over lags in U.S. naval shipbuilding after the service altered plans for attack boat procurement for the first time in several years.Seeking to adhere to the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 that capped defense spending, the Navy released a Fiscal Year 2025 budget that wants to buy six battle force ships and decommission 19. The service elected to buy one Virginia-class submarine instead of the usual two attack boats it purchases.
                https://news.usni.org/2024/04/18/navys-single-sub-buy-plan-raises-concerns-with-congress
                This took a quick minute to find on Google.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So the navy ELECTED to purchase one instead of two due to budget restrictions since they haven't given them a real budget in awhile.

                So that is not a 1/year going forward, that is for THIS year only they're buying one, so they can continue the usual 2+ going forward.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Literally in the article
                >To meet the Australian demand for three to five Virginia-class attack boats and also build the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, Newport News and Electric Boat would have to build at a rate of 2.33 Virginias per year
                So they are budget restricted for FY2024 and FY2025 to make advanced procurement, on an already delayed and overbudget program, and cannot produce subs fast enough.
                This is on top of delays for the Columbia-class Subs as well, which are receiving more priority.
                How are you still defending this bullshit?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you moronic?

                The FIRST US built AUKUS Virginia-class is a Block VII which won't be sold until 2038.

                The first two Virginia-class subs will be Block IV boats delivered in 2032 and 2035, the one to be delivered in 2032 is a currently in-service Block IV was commissioned in 2020 (SSN-791 or 792), the one to-be delivered in 2035 is set to commission in 2026 (likely SSN-801)

                All of which are currently already in construction (or in service) or are a future production Block that wont even start production until the early 2030s anyway when the budget could be completely different/fixed (or worse, but we won't know until 5+ years from now)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Literal brainlet understanding of funding, procurement, and manufacturing scheduling
                Do you understand the concept of advanced procurement? By delaying the funding until FY 2026, you are preventing the manufacturer from making orders of the material, equipment, and labor needed to complete the project on time.
                The lead time for submarine projects are uniquely long and sophisticated. Funding a single sub when the plan requires two is going to force the manufacturer to adjust the timeline further, which delays everything.
                You don’t need to believe me, you can hear it from the lead on the project as to the problems of delaying the funding.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Clown world. But oh well, it’s basically a post-America world (American hegemony) so of course the forces will be slashed. If you’re not going to use them why buy them?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That's why
            That' why... what?
            What are you citing??
            You chose the existing FREMM as a base which is why it has only ~15% commonality with the Constellation?

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    FFGbros, our thoughts on the JMSDF lighter surface combatants like Akizuki and Asahi class DD?
    I unironically think these would have made good entries for FFG(X).

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's a nice boat sonny, we'll take em
      Now make it 600 feet long and 10,000 tons
      But keep the same design

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy." -Kelly Johnson

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "That's not what we agreed to. Shut the frick up and let us build the ship."

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >may not be delivered until 2029
    Meanwhile:

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Very interesting chart thank you.

      You can get 2 FDI frigates for the price of that one metal coffin and it would be an infinitely superior solution.

      Yes but it takes 36 months to make a FDI although they're built in parallel at the Lorient shipyard which will allow Naval Group to deliver two FDI per year between 2025 and 2026 or one every six months. However the next batch of frigates will be delivered in 2030.
      It's not just about construction speed, it's also about production scale.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There is a reason why Japan, Korea and China are making over 90% of all ships these days.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >these days
        for at least 60 years now you mean
        usa literally shot itself in the foot with jones act and still dont even bother removing it

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They are positively strangling, sister.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >usa literally shot itself in the foot with jones act and still dont even bother removing it

          huh i never knew about this
          seems like protectionism gone wild lmao

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          China is a new player it used to be S.Korea mostly.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they were at the same level it just that they werent advertising themselfs as much if at all till csic happened
            early 1995 was the tipping point really they merged a lot of state entities under different conglomerates to start the dominance we see today
            and still its hilarious that they still havent surpassed the greeks even tho they outbuild them

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every single US ship is at least a year delayed.
    Time to start shooting people.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >communist behavior
      Just say no.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The yard is using those funds to incentivize both its blue and white collar workforce with bonuses to stay at Marinette.
    you're gonna keep doing that until every ship is done you? no? raise the base pay instead

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if the design isn't finished why did they authorize construction 3 years ago?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The Navy has identified nearly $310 million in cost growth on the first four frigates
    That's about 25% increase. And cumulative inflation since that time is also around that amount. Nothing Fincantieri can do about that.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Should have bought type 26

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >unplanned weight growth
    Note to self, any shipgirl art for her should be at least a little chubby.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The number of morons who fall for these bot posts is insane. /k/ really is the easiest board to bait

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lmao, Western trannavies can't even figure out how to build frigates anymore, meanwhile:

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can get 2 FDI frigates for the price of that one metal coffin and it would be an infinitely superior solution.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is a genuinely pretty hull but I doubt sensortech beneath it is worthy of the praise also.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >a single hull meme fishcutter appears

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Trevithick
    daily reminder that this Black person hasn't yet apologised for being proven completely wrong about the F-35

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Each Constellation-class frigate is estimated to cost around $1.7 billion to $2 billion.
    >Each Sejong the Great-class destroyer is estimated to cost around $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion.
    Literally just end it already.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >$1.7 billion to $2 billion
      What the frick, I remember Burkes and nuclear attack subs costing $1billion.
      The frick's wrong with procurement and prices

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Things have changed a lot since chink virus, Anon.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The government and the Fed doubled the debt and quadrupled the money supply, with the results on prices that you would expect if you cracked open a microeconomics textbook.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How come my money and income didn't double.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most wages haven't been keeping up with inflation since the 70s anon. Why do you think boomers could put themselves through college working minimum wage.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >until 1968
              What happend?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                US went off the gold standard allowing the Federal Reserve to debase the dollar to pay for all of Congress's spending

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Chicken nuggets at McDonald's isn't the only thing that got a lot more expensive in the last few years.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Seems like we've just gotten a lot poorer. China still pumps out cruiser-tier vessels at $920 per ship. How come?
          >inb4 lower labor costs
          South Korea's Sejong class cruisers cost less than our frigate.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ships are a lot cheaper to build when you don't worry about things like damage control systems, watertight bulkheads, etc.

            Chinese ships are expendible floating coffins for an aquatic Zerg rush.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>Each Constellation-class frigate is estimated to cost around $1.7 billion to $2 billion
      Lol what the frick?

      Even the CRS Report says the first ship will be $1.5B and subsequent ships should be around $1B

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >will be
        Do you seriously think that there's not going to be a price hike at this point?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A price hike of $500-800M?

          Again, the CRS report IS the doom/gloom report on the program. If even THEY'RE saying it'll be $1.2B, then that's probably what it will cost.

          CRS reports love to call out cost overruns.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A price hike of $500-800M?
            That's pretty moderate for a Navy acquisition program actually.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Not when the boats are only supposed to cost $1-1.2B

              That would be a 50% increase or more.

              And again, he has no evidence to support that $1.7-2B number besides pulling it directly from his anus.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        1 billion seems like way too fricking much. Isn’t a carrier 10 billion? Aren’t we going to need more than like 13 of these things?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      USA is not going to buy ships made in another country.
      South Koreans do not have a ship yard in the USA, but the Italians have the one in Wisconsin. The whole FFG project was to keep the Wisconsin ship yard in business, after the Freedom Class LCS project.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >mk.45
      miss me with that gay ass shit

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Somehow someone will inject France into this.
    >The Navy and shipbuilder Fincantieri Marinette Marine otherwise continue to grapple with the impacts of major changes in the ship's configuration compared to its Franco-Italian Fregata Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM) parent design.
    >compared to its Franco-Italian Fregata Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM) parent design.
    >Franco-Italian Fregata Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM)
    Voila. Like clockwork.
    Daily reminder the italian design won the tender, not the French one, especially since Naval Group, formerly DCNS, was not participating in this tender.
    The commonality between the French and Italian FREMM, cost wise is already quite low.
    >https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frégate_multi-missions#Partage_industriel
    >On December 26, 2002, the FMMs, now known as “Frégates européennes multi-missions” (FREMM), were awarded to DCNS on the French side, and to Orizzonte Sistemi Navali on the Italian side, a consortium comprising Fincantieri and Finmeccanica, under the supervision of the Organisation conjointe de coopération en matière d'armement (OCCAr). This mode of cooperation is based on experience gained from programs such as Horizon.
    >The plan is for a joint upstream design, and joint procurement of the turbine, stabilization system, electronic warfare system and sonar. With these items representing around 10% of the ship's cost, the operation will save around one million euros per vessel.
    >In 2013, Patrick Boissier, Chairman and CEO of DCNS, stated that less than 10% of the cost of the studies had been pooled, and that, taking into account the additional costs of specific studies relating to the different platforms for each country, as well as the extra cost linked to coordination, the amount saved was brought down to around 15 million euros. All in all, thanks to this cooperation, France will have saved around 30 million euros, or just 1% to 1.5% of the total cost of the program.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, well the US Navy is notorious for changing its mind. Also, the ship had a major redesign from the Italian design from the start. Unfortunately, the USN had the contractor cut steel for the first one before the redesign was finished,
    The original Italian design was also slow for a frigate, then the USN had them add 20 feet or something to the hill length for more electric power generation.
    The whole thing is fricked from the start. USN should have had a clean sheet design. However, the US Government was in a rush to get the first ones in the water and the contracts signed during the Trump Administration. The USN was supposed to be expanded. Biden originally wanted to cut the USN's size, so cut finding for some projects and delayed projects.
    US Government is fricked up and the USN a little more so, as always.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >add 20 feet or something to the hull length
      That adds speed.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > adds speed
        > now too slow to keep up with the carriers.

        Doing it wrong.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The U.S. still has tons of ships and are building more with the help of other countries. You're projecting.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Can’t build more Virginia class Subs under AUKUS agreement
      >completely screws up Zumwalt program. Will take another decade before Hypersonics are battle-ready on ship
      >Littoral ships are cracking, can’t fix problems
      >Shipyards throughout the US have closed. High turnover and financial problems are making problem worse
      Putting your head in the sand isn’t going to change the fact that the US has a vital industry in trouble, and needs to find solutions to alleviate it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In FY2025, the Navy is ordering 6 new ships, and sending 19 to the scrap pile. Going out of business sale.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Seeing as how they have trouble recruiting new sailors, I guess they are forced to scrap since older ships cannot even be adequately manned, even if they have a few more years of service left in them.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Constellation Class Frigate
    Why not Flagellation Class Frigate? Sounds cool and is in accordance with naval traditions.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So, BASICALLY Fincantieri made super optimistic claims to get the tender and tried to make good on them by not paying workers enough and so lost workers. They’re trying to claim the Navy’s design changes are a part of the problem — FRICK YOU Black person lowlives, fricking PAY A GOOD WAGE. These utter clowns are offering a $5k bonus to stay on for a year and an addition $5k to stay on for the completion of the ships. That’s fricking peanuts what’s wrong with these trash?

    Look, it’s a hustle and I get it. Fake it till you make it and all that. But the MIC can’t get into the habit of selling super-optimistic contracts figuring once they lock in Uncle Sam they can just figure it out later. Frick that. Maybe the Navy just has to pull the plug on this project. Accept that the program died on a lying contractor and Navy blithely believing the lies. From then on the signal has to go out that the Navy doesn’t work with liars — contracts have to include mechanisms to catch and deal with contractor target failures which put the contractor on the hook for it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your country can't pick and choose contractors.

      Congress just announced that due to budget restrictions, they can only purchase one sub/ year instead of the two which is necessary to match the AUKUS agreement timeline.
      The Virginia Class Sub deliveries are already late by 2 years. The USS Idaho was supposed to be commissioned this March, now it’s slated for later 2025.
      Because the navy and shipyards are so poorly managed, they’re basically sailing into another disastrous program where they cannot match their goals.

      Nah.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Should have gone clean sheet or modified the NSC. Then at least all the design stakeholders would be local.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Then at least all the design stakeholders would be local.

      Stakeholder is WEF-speak, it translates into "grifter" in normal english. I think you meant to use "supplier" but are ESL.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Frick you Black person. If you want to get cute, then arguably Fincantieri and the navy—not per se a proper noun on its own—are both "grifters" as far as the sentiment of this thread goes. I was using the 'stakeholder' generically to refer to parties whether or not they have a material stake (you see) in materially supplying parts of the design.

        I had another word I was considering using for the post instead of 'stakeholder', but I can't remember it because it's Friday evening here in Pacific Time and I'm getting drunk.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Buy a small proven off the shelf frigate to save time and money with only enough changes to make it pass USN damage control standards
    >Once the papers are signed start making massive changes to the design (including removing the bow sonar) and loading it up with mission creep bullshit until 80% of the design is changed and it's way way bigger and heavier meaning it needs much longer sea trials
    >Wonder why things are delayed for 5 years when major changes were being made even as the first ships were in the stocks

    This is why those responsible for the LCS should have been hanged from the yardarm not given another ship class to ruin.

    Personally though I attribute all this to the well known factual event that when the first Perry class was being laid down Admiral Zumwalt was cursed by a Gypsy in a rowboat that all US frigate classes after Perry and anything bearing the Zumwalt name will be horrifically cursed with dark sigone magick so that the USN would be stuck operating LAMPS from Burkes until 2074.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >with only enough changes to make it pass USN damage control standards
      That was already like 75% of the changes, no need to pretend removing the bow sonar and redoing the layout for USN weapons was a significant portion of work.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I want to believe it anon

        If that's the case either the Italians lied about how much work was needed and/or USN procurement are gibbering morons.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Italians have experience laying down these ships, Americans have experience fricking up design of ships.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Americans have experience in ACTUAL combat damage control at sea.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, good luck with that.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Funny you should post a gif of the Exocet. USS Stark took two of those amidships and lived.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It unironically returned to port under its own power and eventually reentered service.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/kJdzh6m.jpeg

                It unironically returned to port under its own power and eventually reentered service.

                FFG-7 > Constellation > FREMM

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Deflection but whatever.
                You do realise that more than 30 people died because of one missile and that the ship was mission killed?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We were talking about damage control which believe it or not only happens after a ship is damaged.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Still impressive for 4000 tons boat.
                Remember Moscow crusier went to the bottom after such.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >This is why those responsible for the LCS should have been hanged from the yardarm not given another ship class to ruin.
      Those guys are long retired, anon.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Laughs in British

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Arleigh Burkes on Mars

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know what the navy is doing but they need to get their fricking act together. They're consistently the shittiest of the 5 branches.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The army is the shittiest by dint of taking up as much of the budget as it does. If NATO was working properly—which is to say Europe was taking its own defense seriously—they would have vastly larger ground forces, the US Army would be half its current size, and the savings would go into our air force and navy.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    everything is over budget when inflation was much higher than originally planned
    but being 3 years late, overweight, only 15% design in common with FREMM, and starting construction before the design was nailed down is all quite underwhelming

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every single time the US military adopts a new vehicle/aircraft/ship/nut/bolt/fastener there are ten thousand articles written by armchair generals about how terrible it's going to be. The vast majority of those projects mature into capable designs. Sure there are some outliers like the LCS which was a fundamentally flawed concept born out of a belief that there was no role left for the conventional US navy. But I expect the Constellation class will work out just fine in the end.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >But I expect the Constellation class will work out just fine in the end.
      The end should have been 2026 not 2029+. The idea of the Constellation Class was a simple Frigate program that can be built, fitted out and deployed ASAP.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *