So why aren't we ordering more of these?FFX is a joke, and a dumb one at that.
>>65199342Do I have some news for you, they aren't ordering any FFXs.Perun brakedown.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXlQb8xBcvM
>>65199344Breakdown is the word you're looking for
Marinette Marine has been producing broken navy ships for 20 years and it will be no different with FFG-62.
the US cancelling ships the past 2 decades is extremely fortunate considering that everything just got fundamentally changed and obsoleted. now the new ships will have a leg up
>>65199703Refits have always been a thing, there is no upside.
>>65199342Why isn't USN ordering more Zumwalts?
>>65199724> refit existing ships> "that will be 10 Billion plus tip"
>>65199342The original price target for the Constellation class was $1.28B for the first ship and $1.05B for the rest. To give you an idea for how ridiculously far they blew past that number, the FF(X), which has no features and can't do anything, is expected to cost $1.67B per ship. With that as a reference point, it's likely that the Constellation would have actually cost MORE than a Burke at $2.8B.
>>65199342America can't build ships.
>>65199759>the FF(X), which has no features and can't do anythingYou can park missile trucks on the helipad :^)
>>65199344>PerunLiteral reddit analyst. This guy got famous for meming in the Russians and people confused it with actual insight or intelligence.
>>65199824What specifically do you diagree with him on?
>>65199827He's completely correct to meme on Russians, but he's fucking clueless about American shipbuilding and needs to stop talking about it. All he does is read off clickbait headlines as if they're facts and then suggest that because the USN can't get a design suitable for their purposes approved, they should just buy worse designs from South Korea.
>>65199834So you think he's wrong that after 2 failed frigate programs and going with a Coast Guard Cutter instead it's insane to propose the US might be shit at something and be better off licencing production of someone elses design?Is it really the case that he did one video you disagree with and now you are defaulting to "he doesn't know shit"?
>>65199827That's the issue, he makes hour long videos without a thesis. Its just a regurgitation of various news articles with pithy reddit-tier asides. It's painfully obvious he's never been involved with an organization more complex than a lemonade stand and couldn't lead a team out of a paper bag. In his most recent video, his fixation on just raw VLS numbers in hulls is a great example. No discussion of doctrine, completely ignores that Burkes exists and keep getting built, and doesn't even mention the fact the BBGN has sufficient displacement to carry internal reloads.
>>65199852The LCS isn't a frigate and isn't a failure. It's cheaper and just as capable as FF(X) and the detailed design work has already largely been done to equip them with VLS. For as much of a piece of shit the Freedom class is, even the Freedom derivative frigate would be vastly superior to the FF(X) and just about anything the rest of the world has to offer. The only possible exception is the Pohjanmaa class, which is essentially a modern LCS designed with the benefit of looking at what did and didn't work out for the American LCS program over the course for decades.>Is it really the case that he did one video you disagree with and now you are defaulting to "he doesn't know shit"?He also did videos on Zumwalt, LCS, and Constellation that demonstrated that he doesn't know shit.
>>65199868No idea about the guy, but the FF(X) has better room for growth and upgradability than the LCSs. Also the LCS are failures due to their design not fitting with reality, they have no real role. They are costal patrol ships that cost 400m, many have been scrapped and modules have been cancelled. Just because the FF(X) is shit it doesn't mean the LCS isn't.
MIC has gone full retard. Never go full retard.
>>65199342>why aren't we ordering more of these?Looks kinda fake, desu.
>>65199929In a world of drone warfare, seems like a ship based on the Independence class trimaran would be ideal. Give it better native weapon systems (VLS, etc.) and sensors, and use a stronger hull with a traditional drive. The modularity concept of the LCS was good, and the huge flight deck/mission bays on the trimaran were also good. Where LCS went full retard was in trying to be as fast as a speedboat.
>>65199862>completely ignores that Burkes exists and keep getting builtSo you didn't watch it then.
>>65199827The fact he doesnt even mention the American CGNs and instead compares the Defiant class to the fucking Kirovs perfectly encapsulates he doesn't even have a passing awareness of naval matters and is playing to his midwit base.
>>65199960He mentions the Burkes, but it doesn't factor into his "analysis." The crazy thing is he doesn't even talk about the existing force, U.S. commitments and interests, and what an adequate battle fleet looks like. It's crazy how surface level this video is.Moreover it's beset by his own logical inconsistencies. He says the BBGN is dumb because it's too expensive/heavy for its VLS count, then says we should buy Euro-poverty frigates which are even worse in that regards.
>>65199944>In a world of drone warfare, seems like a ship based on the Independence class trimaran would be idealWhy would it be? Surely you'd want high spare power generation to feed laser systems. The biggest issue with drones are their number number compared against defensive missiles. >Give it better native weapon systems (VLS, etc.) and sensors, and use a stronger hull with a traditional drive.That's a completely different ship that will be double the cost, it would need to be totally redesigned.>The modularity concept of the LCS was goodNot really, StanFlex was good but the US went retarded with it, they saw it and thought how can we totally fuck it.>and the huge flight deck/mission bays on the trimaran were also good.Depends on the goal you are attempting to attain.
>>65199992>$14b on one ship with a lot of VLS>$14b on ~20 ships with less VLS>more total VLS for the same moneyI don't see the logical inconsistencyA point he never mentioned that I think should have been is how adverse to casualties the US is and how sending a super ship with 1000+ crew is risking a lot more casualties than sending a smaller ship with 100+ crew.
>>65199834You're actually butthurt to miss his point. He never suggested the US to order Korean ships, but offer the Koreans, as one example of many other navies who can equip their ships with high end capabilities -- and still be below the FF(X) budget.
>>65199992>then says we should buy Euro-poverty frigates which are even worse in that regardsAre you actually a paid shill for US shipyards lol?
>>65199342because we're going to get on the Mogami train
>>65200010>>65199992BBG(X) is trash, it is very inefficient compared to a Burke, the only good thing about it are the 12 CPS missiles.
>>65200042BBG(X) is trash but BBGN(X) is cash
>>65200064Didn't see they added an N onto the acronym, I thought it was strange it was missing it. Still shite tho.
>>65200064>>65200069The whole thing is retarded but making in nuclear is less retarded.
>>65200010Because he says the Burke is a maxed out design with limited room for upgrades. So why is buying shittier smaller frigates the solution?Again his whole video is flawed because he never discusses what the U.S. needs to do with its navy. Without that important context it's just a videogame analysis.
>>65199735>The worst class of ship is the namesake of the best CNO for moraleWhat did they mean by this
>>65200077I do not know about the reactor production for the USN, so couldn't comment. Also as I understand it, from an AUKUS view at least, they are long lead items, so could delay the class or other vessels.
>>65200092It'll be running the same reactors from the Ford class carriers so shouldn't impact SSNs, as for delays there is no way this program doesn't run at least a decade late either way.
>>65200111My worry is the it could delay Fords or their successors, the production facilities who produce these reactors need to enlarged, unless they are vastly under capacity or already building extra production.
>>65199929>the FF(X) has better room for growth and upgradability than the LCSsIt needs all of that room just to reach parity with the LCSes. The FF(X) is being retrofitted for the same sensor and countermeasure systems the Independence was designed with, and while the hangar and helipad can technically accommodate an MH-60, they were designed for the smaller MH-65 and are only barely sufficient for Navy use. The NSC is not well equipped for the Navy's needs, which is why they decided not to procure it 20 years ago when they had the choice.>Also the LCS are failures due to their design not fitting with reality, they have no real role. They are costal patrol ships that cost 400m, many have been scrapped and modules have been cancelled.All of this is wrong.
>>65199808It's actually more like "America can't run a procurement program". The root cause, if you really dig down, is the Peace Dividend, when all of the civilian DoD people who were in charge of managing procurement programs got fired because it was the "end of history" and decades of institutional knowledge on how to run a highly-technical modern military procurement program walked was lost.
>>65200120The first few ships aren't supposed to be nuclear, so there will be a long time to ramp up production. South Korea also wants to get Hanwha Philly nuclear certified so they can build their own nuclear subs there.
>>65200177>It needs all of that room just to reach parity with the LCSes. The FF(X) is being retrofitted for the same sensor and countermeasure systems the Independence was designed with, and while the hangar and helipad can technically accommodate an MH-60, they were designed for the smaller MH-65 and are only barely sufficient for Navy use. Not true, plus jumboisation.>The NSC is not well equipped for the Navy's needs, which is why they decided not to procure it 20 years ago when they had the choice.Yes, similar to the Independence.>All of this is wrong.It isn't, why are you coping over one shitty ship class?
>>65200195>Not trueIt's all true and trivial to verify. A single Google search would save you from looking like a retard.>plus jumboisation.Wow, so in order to make a ship as capable as the LCS, they can just take a larger and less capable ship and then make it even larger? Is that why it's planned to cost nearly three times as much as an Independence and offer zero additional capability?>Yes, similar to the Independence.The Independence met the Navy's requirements, which is why they decided to procure it 20 years ago.>It isn't, why are you coping over one shitty ship class?Once again, it's trivially easy to verify. It is only the Freedom class that ever had problems beyond typical teething issues and those have largely been resolved at this point. The MCM, SuW, and ASW mission packages are all functional, and no LCSes have been scrapped although the first two Independences that were essentially prototypes and a handful of Freedoms have been mothballed. The same thing will happen to the Flt I FF(X)es.
>>65200276>It's all trueNo, it isn't.>Wow, so in order to make a ship as capable as the LCSNo the base FFX has the same SeaRam, same main gun, and double the NSMs. It can be extended to become more capable.>The Independence met the Navy's requirementsRequirements changes; it is why they are getting, and have been, shit canned.>Once again, it's trivially easy to verify.And despite that you keep getting things wrong.>MCM, SuW, and ASW mission packages are all functionalWrong. All apart from the MCM have defacto been scrapped, which is why the class has basically been forced to pivot to just MCM. There has not been a general roll out of SuW and ASW modules.
>>65200082>Because he says the Burke is a maxed out design with limited room for upgrades. So why is buying shittier smaller frigates the solution?Where did he say this? Please find the exact quote because you've got a habit it seems of making shit up
>>65200346>No the base FFX has the same [everything]Yes, that's what I said.>it is why they are getting, and have been, shit canned.Only the Freedom has been partially shitcanned, and only that is because the Navy understandably didn't want to spend $150m per hull to cut them open and replace the transmission. All of the Independences are still in service, except for the original two ships. Once again, the Flt I FF(X)es will also be retired early.>And despite that you keep getting things wrong.Like what?>All apart from the MCM have defacto been scrappedMost LCSes aren't even equipped with the MCM package, they're equipped with SuW. You're a fucking retard and you have no idea what you're talking about.>There has not been a general roll out of SuW and ASW modules.There has been of the SuW package, with both gun and missile modules. There has not been a large scale procurement of the ASW package because by the time it reached IOC, Constellation was already on the horizon and the Navy was looking to use those for the role rather than Freedom, since they always had issues and this was also around the same time as the combining gear retrofit when they were trying to retire practically the entire class.
>>65199834What American shipbuilding? They don't fucking have any.
>>65199342The USN needs ships like FF(X), not smaller Burkes.
>>65199344Setting aside that isn't what Perun claims this was a really sloppy video by him. He uses outdated information (like the Trump's armament or where they will be built), doesn't compare in current year dollars and doesn't bother to look into how much of the prices he is quoting are actually for the ahips.
>>65199344Oh man, I watched this yesterday. I got a good solid couple of laughs out of him repeatedly burying the lead on what the "battleship" program was supposed to achieve and where it came from. I admit it was very enlightening to see the design lineage, why the DDG(X) was cancelled in favor of it, what it's doctrinal role is intended to be, why it's so big and expensive, and some how the navy intends to actually build the things. There's also some bits in there about the future role of the USN you can piece together with context from geopolitical developments. I think most of this sailed clean over his head though. He is an econtard after all.
>>65199759>the FF(X), which has no features and can't do anything, is expected to cost $1.67B per shipNo they aren't.
>>65199852A NSC based design is what LCS should have been 20 years ago.
>>65200010>the solution is to being averse to casualties is to build cheaper, less survivable ships with a worse and different damage control approach from the rest of the fleetGenius
>>65200010>$14b on ~20 ships with less VLS>more total VLS for the same moneyYou aren't getting 20 ships for $14 billion with more VLS than a Trump unless those 20 ships make huge compromises.
>>65200187>The first few ships aren't supposed to be nuclear"It came to me in a dream."
>>65200350nta but Flight III Burkes are maxxed out on growth, the fact that you are even questioning this shows how little you know of the subject
>>65199944Where would you put VLS in that trimaran?Dumbass.
>>65200892>burying the lead"Lede".Dumbass.Almost as bad as "brakedown".
>>65200928And you're a moron if that's how you are comprehending that question.
>>65200948Hope he sees this bro
>>65200882Comparing apples to apples when it comes to shipbuilding dollars is really where any journalist falls apart, but Perun especially should catch onto it. COVID inflation, trade wars, and a lack of shipyards has really increased the costs of building ships over the past 5 years. We're talking +50% range. I've seen some journalists lament that we've doubled shipbuilding dollars over the past twenty years but haven't increased the number of ships. But rather than come to the conclusion that shipbuilding is fucked, they then blame the Navy for cancelled ships.FF(X) and BBG(X) costs are not exuberant. They stand out because block buys of other ship classes haven't caught up to the price fuckery yet. But once Burkes are $3.5b and CVN-82 is >$20b, maybe some journalist will put 2 and 2 together.... who am I kidding? Journalists are mouthbreathers and can't do fucking basic math.
>>65200934How about the place where Austal put them?
>>65200001I'm not proposing an intermediate solution. I'm proposing a long-term solution. One that addresses our failures in the Strait of Hormuz. Drones are the new threat, especially drone swarms. And I don't think laser on the "low" component of our high-low mix is the solution. I think we need to look at the past. Many of these drones are essentially small prop planes. We need radar guided flak guns. Independence has two multi-mission slots up top that could accommodate them, in addition to its 57mm. That's why I like the modularity of LCS. Not for the original vision of routinely swapping mission containers, but for the "oh fuck we messed up." Easier to design a new mission module than a new ship. In the interim, just build more Indies. Improve marginally if it doesn't slow hulls in the water too much. Long term we need a larger, more capable and more robust version. Dare I say it, an actual "frigate" version. Then the next time Iran closes that Hormussy we can use Burkes to intercept the high-tech stuff and Indies to handle the swarms of low-tech stuff.
>>65201093This already exists. The gun module for the surface warfare package has two 30mm guns that can be used against air or surface targets, and the Hellfire missiles in the surface to surface missile module have proven effective against sneeds in Ukraine. >Then the next time Iran closes that Hormussy we can use Burkes to intercept the high-tech stuff and Indies to handle the swarms of low-tech stuff.It's funny how all of a sudden people are talking about how the Navy needs this or that to deal with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, when the Navy investigated that same problem over 30 years ago, gave us the answer, and nothing much has changed since then. We need Zumwalts and we need LCSes configured for surface warfare. Instead, we have Burkes and LCSes configured for mine clearing. That will be an important role but not until Iranian forces have been removed from the Strait.
>>65199929Holy shit its another retard. How many times do we have to go over the same points again and again?
>>65201059TBF I think you two are arguing technically different things. He seems to be looking at a variant or light modification to the original Independence class. What you have in your picture is a new ship class that is based on or derived from the Independence class. Of particular note to your discussion is I seem to recall they increased the draft quite a bit; that would help give the needed room for full VLS cells. The issue that no one ever wants to actually talk about when they advocate for cramming VLS cells onto smaller ships is that the need both enough vertical clearance AS WELL AS need to account for the issues to astability from all those top heavy cells along with the high power (and heavy) radars to properly utilize them that go at the tip of high masts. Its not just numbers on a spread sheet; there are unsexy, real-world implications that also need to be considered. Sorry for my rant.
>>65201511>What you have in your picture is a new ship class that is based on or derived from the Independence class.No, it's just a very lightly modified Independence. You're thinking of this later design from when the requirement was increased to 32 cells. The trimaran hullform already offers extremely high stability for its size.
>>65201093>>65201127Look up>MK 340 KEET30mm are subsonic drone annihilators now
>>65201093>our failures in the Strait of HormuzAs if the reddit spacing wasn't enough of a giveaway.
>>65201521No, I am thinking of their frigate submission/suggestion/musing not "a very lightly modified Independence."I know you're going to dig in your heels and insist you are right so I went and looked it up. Its the SeaAirSpace '17 as part of Austal's frigate entry for the FFG(X). Here is literally an article from the time with that exact picture and its clearly labeled as a frigate.https://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/austal-pushes-big-missiles-for-small-ships-lcs-vls/You're free to disagree with me but then you are going to actually need to provide something; otherwise, I won't be responding no matter how much you whine and fling shit.>The trimaran hullform already offers extremely high stability for its size.No one said otherwise.
>>65200863Why
>>65201584Because it is a huge waste to have Burkes do work like narco hunting.
>>65201587Why are we "narco hunting" and why are you pretending that the Constellation is a Burke just because it's not useless like the FFX?
Just a reminder, that according to the original plan, the first Constellation was supposed to be delivered to the Navy next month.Instead they are like 15% done...with construction. They still have the launch, float, and fit. Then the builder trials. Then INSURV trials. Basically no time at all. Anyday now, 2 weeks at most.
>>65201589>why are you pretending that the Constellation is a BurkeAnon it would serve you better to be sequitur, that isn't what was said.The USN has 75+ Burkes, it doesn't need ships that are 2/3 the cost for 1/3 the ability of a Burke to do lesser missions like narco hunting.Euro frigates would be very different if European navies had anything remotely as capable as a Burke, Tico, Sejong, 055 etc.
>>65201618>why>are>we>narco>huntingWe have a Coast Guard and they already have the ships the FFX wants to be.
>>65201578>its clearly labeled as a frigate.What makes you think a lightly modified Independence can't be a frigate?>You're free to disagree with me but then you are going to actually need to provide somethingOkay, what would you like me to provide?>No one said otherwise.So we're in agreement that a change like adding VLS wouldn't require substantial redesigns to maintain a reasonable level of seakeeping? Cool.
>>65201616They're not even finished with designing it. Canceling Constellation was a good call.
>>65201638>You're free to disagree with me but then you are going to actually need to provide something; otherwise, I won't be responding no matter how much you whine and fling shit.
>>65201647So anything will do? How about a neat picture? If you decide what you'd rather have me provide, just let me know.
>>65201644Build more Independence class
>>65201628Your admin has a hard on for using military and paramilitary assets for police work. Why? My best guess is that they want to be/want to larp as fascists, or think that funding ordinary police shit is uncool or unsexy or not tuff guy enough. Either way it misallocates resources and causes way more problems than it solves.
>>65201661Because they're fucking retards. Why are we pretending that this is a good strategy or a use of taxpayer dollars?
>>65199724You can't just keep sticking new tech onto a decades-old ship forever. For as much as the Burkefags flaunt their superiority over the Iowas, they have the exact same outlook in naval development.
>>65201842Eh, ship is fine, as long as you don't stuff it with high-draw appliances like lasers or microwave projectors. If you stick to good old-fashioned guns and missiles, it does the job more than adequately.
>>65201664Counterpoint: the US military has been crippled by decades of optimization for warfare at the expense of everything else, so now we're in a situation where they could take on any five other countries' armed forces at once and win with minimal losses, but can't accomplish the civilian goals that actually matter, like ensuring freedom of navigation through the middle eastern straits.
>>65201865I'm sorry, are you saying that we need to gimp the Navy so that we can win wars again? Are you brain damaged?
>>65201865Freedom of navigation is one of the USN's core missions, ever since they fucked up the Barbary Coast towelheads 200 years ago. Chasing and blowing up random drugrunner sudacas isn't. That's what the USCG along with Customs and the DEA are for.
>>65201848So...as long as we don't do anything new or add anything to the ship it'll be fine? Sounds like its expansion potential has been all tapped out.
>>65201874You can rejigger some of the existing stuff to better cover your new needs. Ex. remove the 5'', it's old and BAe have not updated their gun to the same extent Leonardo (their competitor) have updated theirs (OTO 127). Replace it with a Bofors 57 (I'd have preferred a 76 SuperRapid, but the USN is an exclusive BAe customer) with a shitload of 3P ammo (and some ALAMO rounds, just in case). Replace one Phalanx with a SeaRAM, and the other one with a Bofors 40 (full 3P load). This way you have more options when dealing with cheapshit, instead of just a $2m-a-pop ESSM, or a $900k-a-pop RAM. >where lazor No electricity budget, especially on flight III with their giganigga radar. You need a minimum of 100 kW to make sure shit gets nice and crispy *<quickly>*, and that's not feasible on the ABs, as per the USN's own admission.
>>65201870I'm saying that most of the military's job isn't blowing up T-90s or Type 055s, it's blowing up Somalian pirates or playing policemen in goatfuckistan or just dickwaving so hard that Russia and China don't even think of starting shit. Congressional fuckfuck games with LCS resulting in splitting the program between two classes and curtailing the overall order really did a number on the first and canceling Zumwalt killed any hope of the last. Even with all of the changes during the GWOT, what we ended up with was an army designed for direct warfare with some concessions for counterinsurgency and not a purpose built large scale occupying force, which is part of why the state of Hormuz is what it is today. Everyone knows an invasion of Iran would go just as poorly as the invasion of Iraq because we learned nothing in all that time.
>>65200376>Yes, that's what I saidNo, you said that in reply to jumboisation. So you are wrong.>Only the Freedom has been partially shitcannedWrong, also the independence >Like what?Like everything I've pointed out.>Most LCSes aren't even equipped with the MCM package, they're equipped with SuW. You're a fucking retard and you have no idea what you're talking about.MCM is the only mission package still seeing active construction and operational expansion, you inbred retard.>There has been of the SuW package, with both gun and missile modules. There has not been a large scale procurement of the ASW package because by the time it reached IOC, Constellation was already on the horizon and the Navy was looking to use those for the role rather than Freedom, since they always had issues and this was also around the same time as the combining gear retrofit when they were trying to retire practically the entire class.SuW existing on some ships isn’t a general rollout, it was never the default like MCM. Once again you are wrong.
>>65201521>it's just a very lightly modified Independence >shows a massively redesigned fictional hullKek.
>>65199992pfff is this retard actually shilling for Trump class battleships
>>65201628>We have a Coast Guard and they already have the ships the FFX wants to be.FF(X) being based on NSC does not mean that the USCG has ships that the FF(X) wants to be.But you knew this and are grasping at straws.
>>65201661As if we didn't need direct evidence we were arguing with an blue haired woman.
>>65202293>They already built all of the SuW MPs they'll need and therefore it doesn't existOh, so you're actually retarded. You could have just said that up front and saved us both the time.
>>65201897All of that just sums up to the upgrade potential being maxxed which is the entire point.
>>65202293Just admit you are wrong and move on. This is embarassing.
>>65202605Just because its upgrade potential has been mostly expended doesn't mean that a) Burkes are obsolete; b) there are no efficiency/effectiveness improvements still on the table.
>>65202479>>65202612>CopingI accept you concession. The independence are a class of overpriced shit.
>>65202722The problem is that while there's instances where you could increase the performance on a per-ship basis, there are fleet-wide inefficiencies those changes will introduce. So you swap out the BAE gun for the Oto, what can you do now that you couldn't before? On the other hand, you now have a new system in service that you need to train people to use and maintain. Do you replace all of the Mk.45s across the fleet or maintain both systems in parallel? Sure, none of these are critical concerns, but multiply them by every possible system that could be swapped out for something a little better or a little cheaper and before long you'll be buried under the logistical requirements of maintaining it all.We're also seeing right now that the Burke isn't capable of the tasks being demanded of it. If all they ever had to do was blow up chink and zigger sailboats, they'd be as eternal as their shills claim they are. But maintaining a presence in a contested chokepoint requires low observability from over the horizon weapons and extremely deep magazines for dealing with endless swarms of low end threats as well as the assortment of high end interceptors and offensive fires our ships are currently equipped with.
>>65202743And what is it that the FF(X) can do that the Independence can't for 2.5x the cost? Keep in mind that from what we've seen, FF(X) Flight I will offer an incomplete equivalent of the SuW MP with SSM module, and no equivalent of the gun module, MCM package, or ASW package.
>>65202869>And what is it that the FF(X) can do that the Independence can't for 2.5x the costI have always claimed the FF(X) is terrible, notice how its currently expected cost is the same as the FFG(X) when it was cancelled, but it can have a towed sonar array attached as well as MK 70. Not that I am claiming it would be worth the price point. Both can be terrible, don't be be so binary in your thought.
>>65203153Constellation was always designed to carry a CAPTAS-4 VDS which is also included in the LCS ASW MP (which exists and is functional), while Flight I of FF(X) is not expected to have provisions for any sonar whatsoever. Also the possibility of equipping FF(X) with a Mk.70 launcher is pure conjecture, it doesn't seem like there would be any major problems with doing it but the Navy has never once mentioned any such thing. The examples they've given for containerized payloads are drones and Hellfires, which can also be carried on an LCS. In fact, an LCS can be equipped with the Hellfire missile module AND a Mk.70 and still have more flight deck area available than a Legend class.
>>65203225>while Flight I of FF(X) is not expected to have provisions for any sonar whatsoever.There are containerised towed arrays in development example: https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sna-2025/2025/01/ultra-maritime-announces-modular-automated-containerized-asw-mission-pod/ which can be installed without any change to the hull. >Also the possibility of equipping FF(X) with a Mk.70 launcher is pure conjectureThey have said that containerised systems will be key for this class as well as large autonomous drones. And have shown it is their intent to add it to the class. It is even in the renders.https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-new-frigate-will-not-have-vertical-launch-systems-for-missilesI am not really interested in defending the FF(X), that was never my point.
>>65203286Now I have zoomed in, it appears to be NSM launchers on the rear? Hard for me to tell, either way the links should be enough to get across my point.
>>65199812You can park missile trucks on an ESB too, that doesn't make it a good platform.
>>65203286This is an independent commercial program and the USN doesn't operate the Sea Lancer system.>They have said that containerised systems will be key for this class as well as large autonomous dronesThe specific containerized payloads they've mentioned are drones and Hellfire missiles. They've made no indication that Mk.70 is a planned payload. I'm also not aware that they've stated exactly which unmanned systems they're planning to integrate as payloads. Could be XBAT, could be LUCAS, could be Coyote.>>65203293Yes, the 16 NSMs are separate from the containerized payload.
does anybody know why they couldn't just pay to plug in an insert with like sixteen VLS cells and CAPTAS?
>plug inDie in a fire
>>65203426That's what they're planning for Flight II, but it's not a simple job so they're building a handful without them while they spend a few years redesigning the ship for the plug. Which is part of why it's so stupid, the Navy already paid for that detailed design work on the Freedom and Independence proposals for the FFG(X) competition where the Legend proposal was eliminated immediately without a design contract because it's dogshit.
>>65203462That's literally what they're doing with Virginia Block V+, it's not impossible. It's "just" that's stupid.
>>65202374No, I'm saying your cited use case is bullshit and a misallocation of limited resources. I dont care if it's the official policy of this government.
>>65203286>containerisedOh fuck right off
>>65203660>I have no argument and I must seethe
>>65203657>I'm saying your cited use case is bullshit You appear to only have a superficial understanding of what the USN does.
>>65203725I think we ask it to do the wrong things for political expediency and complain when it causes problems.
