Home » Budget Industry » Navy Releases Details of New FFG(X) Guided-Missile Frigate Program in Request to Industry


Navy Releases Details of New FFG(X) Guided-Missile Frigate Program in Request to Industry

USS Freedom (LCS-1) and USS Independence (LCS-2)

This post has been updated to include the link to the full Request for Information.

The Navy released the first formal details on what it wants in its guided-missile frigate in a new request for information to industry issued today. The new ship concept outlined in the RFI in many ways resembles the Navy’s previous frigate plans but also looks at upgrades like more powerful radars and vertical-launch missile tubes.

The RFI notes the Navy is still seeking industry input on a variety of capabilities – including, how to incorporate missile launchers for Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2 and Standard Missile (SM)-2, according to an early draft of the RFI obtained by USNI News.

However, the document outlines many key details on the frigate’s mission set, the weapons systems the Navy would like it to employ and the ship class’s procurement profile.

Much like the Littoral Combat Ship that currently fills the small surface combatant role, the FFG(X) mission will focus heavily on unmanned systems, using them to expand “sensor and weapon influence to provide increased information to the overall fleet tactical picture while challenging adversary ISR&T (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting) efforts.”

“This platform will employ unmanned systems to penetrate and dwell in contested environments, operating at greater risk to gain sensor and weapons advantages over the adversary,” according to the RFI.
“The FFG(X) will be capable of establishing a local sensor network using passive onboard sensors, embarked aircraft and elevated/tethered systems and unmanned vehicles to gather information and then act as a gateway to the fleet tactical grid using resilient communications systems and networks.”

In many ways, this FFG(X) design goes beyond what today’s LCS can do, particularly as it relates to surface warfare. The RFI states the frigate should be able to conduct independent operations in a contested environment or contribute to a larger strike group, depending on combatant commander needs.

“During Phase 1 (Deter Aggression) and Phase 2 (Seize the Initiative) operations, the FFG(X) will normally aggregate into strike groups and Large Surface Combatant-led surface action groups but also possess the ability to robustly defend itself during conduct of independent operations while connected and contributing to the fleet tactical grid,” the RFI reads.

As a result, it will have to be equipped with more sophisticated hard-kill and soft-kill technologies to protect itself during independent operations, or to protect logistics ships during escort missions in low- and medium-threat environments, which the RFI warns will include “complex electronic warfare and anti-ship missile threat environments.”

A major argument against the LCS – and the Navy’s first crack at the frigate requirements, which would have been an improved multi-mission version of the LCS – was that it did not have a Vertical Launching System to contribute to air defense missions. The Navy still has not worked out how to incorporate VLS into its frigate plans, and the RFI does not include VLS in its chart of required weapon systems but rather requests input from potential shipbuilders on how to incorporate the missile launchers. Though this issue doesn’t have an engineering solution yet, the new name of the ship class – guided-missile frigate (FFG(X)) compared to the previously named frigate (FF) – suggests a dedication to resolving this issue.

“To increase the FFG(X) self-defense, the Navy is particularly interested in understanding the trade space surrounding the addition of Launcher Capability to support Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block 2 and/or Standard Missile-2 Active missiles,” according to the RFI.
“Solutions should describe the launcher type, cell quantities the proposed design could accommodate, and if able to be cost-effectively integrated include considerations for strike length variants to maximize weapons flexibility. The Navy is also interested in the potential space, weight, and volume the launcher represents that can be included in the FFG(X) design as well as how many cells could be accommodated if design changes were pursued along with understanding the capability trades and cost impacts of those changes. Any innovative approach vendors may have in providing a Launch System or increasing capacity by making design trades across FFG(X) requirements will also be considered.”

Many of the required weapons systems are pulled from the previous FF requirements: the COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System, which pulls software from the same common source library as the Aegis Combat System on large surface combatants; the SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense system; a canister-launched over-the-horizon missile; the surface-to-surface Longbow Hellfire missile; the Mk53 Nulka decoy launching system; the Surface Electron Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 program with SLQ-32(V)6; and a slew of undersea warfare tools such as the AN/SLQ-61 light weight tow, AN/SQS-62 variable depth sonar and AN/SQQ-89F undersea warfare/anti-submarine warfare combat system. It also requires use of the MK 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile being developed for the LCS and frigate.

Other required weapon systems would promote commonality with larger ships in the fleet, such as the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), a larger variant of which will go on future Ford-class aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships.

The RFI demonstrates an attempt to address the biggest concerns from LCS and FF detractors, chiefly in the inability to contribute in a meaningful way to air warfare. But the similarities between the requirements in this RFI and the previous FF plans are hard to ignore – and the RFI itself even makes the same argument that Navy officials have been making for years, that the small surface combatant shouldn’t have the same capabilities as a large surface combatant but rather should be able to take on lower-threat missions and allow cruisers and destroyers to handle more complex work around the globe.

The RFI states that one of the FFG(X)’s two main purposes is to “relieve large surface combatants from stressing routine duties during operations other than war.” It goes on to say later that “this ship will reduce demand on high-end cruisers and destroyers that currently conduct [anti-submarine warfare], [surface warfare], and theater security cooperation missions, allowing for an increase of more capable assets to maintain a stabilizing presence in regions where tensions with nations that have highly capable naval forces may exist.”

The RFI outlines a 20-ship class that procures one hull a year for two years and then two a year moving forward, though the Navy welcomes feedback on more affordable procurement profiles. The service would be looking to award a detail design and construction contract in Fiscal Year 2020, as leadership announced this spring – a one-year delay from its previous plans to allow another pass at the ship’s requirements and the inclusion of bidders beyond just Austal USA and Lockheed Martin that build today’s LCSs.

The RFI was posted online today, and responses from industry are due back on Aug. 24.

  • Marc Apter

    No mention of armor/Damage Control, and doing and operating everything with a reduced crew.

  • David Wilks Cordle

    Wow !

  • Ed L

    Huntington already has four different variants using the Hull of the National Security Cutter already worked up and with VLS, RAM, Guns, capable of doing ASW, ASUW and AAW

    The proposed HII design—called the FF4923, which is based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter, would be a long-endurance patrol frigate that could potentially offer greater combat capabilities as well as range and endurance for a lower price. Company officials told me that they are building nine NSC vessels for the Coast Guard and a Navy variant would be a relatively quick conversion.

    In terms of sensors and weapons, the HII FF4923 would be well furnished. It would include a 3D rotating phased array radar, an EO/IR sensor, passive ECM, hull-mounted sonar and towed-array or variable depth sonar. It would be armed with a Mk-41 vertical launch system with 16 cells capable of carrying the Standard SM-2 and RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile. It would also be equipped with ASROC anti-submarine rockets, eight Harpoon anti-ship missiles, a single triple torpedo launcher and a 76mm gun. HII officials said that their frigate design could be a directly replacement for the now retired Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigate that was mainstay of the Navy’s fleet for decades.

    For ship self-defense, the FF4923 would be equipped with the Raytheon SeaRAM close in defense systems as well as two remotely controlled and four manually operated .50 caliber machine guns. It would also be equipped with anti-missile and anti-torpedo defenses. In addition to the ship’s own capabilities, the FF4923 would have the ability to carry a MH-60R Seahawk helicopter and two unmanned aerial vehicles. It would also be able to launch and recover a 7m rigid-hull inflatable boat.

    The proposed HII frigate—which the company is primarily gearing toward the export market—is a 4,675 metric ton design that is 418-feet long and a beam of 54-feet. The vessel would have a crew size of 121 sailors and would have a range of more than 8,000 nautical miles or more than 60 days. Power would come from a pair of 9,655shp diesels and 30,565shp gas turbine—giving the ship a top speed of just above 28 knots. HII says it could increase the speed to more than 30 knots, but suggested that an incrementally greater sprint speed is not worth the additional cost—especially for the patrol mission

    • John Dehnel

      Excellent!

    • ShermansWar

      rotating phased array radar is inadequate for a ship tasked with local air defence as this one will be. Luckily, if you read the RFI they specify the radar, a 3 plane enterprise air defence radar, a much more capable option than what you suggest.

      also, Harpoons are inadequate, but they have already withdrawn from the competition to supply the OTH SSM. the only viable entrant at this time is the NSM.

  • Curtis Conway

    The most important part of the specification is the primary 3D AESA search radar with all of the functions it provides. Without the non-rotating 3D AESA radar that can perform the fire control function the “The Navy still has not worked out how to incorporate VLS into its frigate plans…” makes little sense, and that is WITHOUT a hole of coverage to zenith on top of the ship. A robust AAW capability is required for all surface combatants just to survive in the modern battle space. Carriers and Amphibious Ships both have at least ESSM for self-defense, and the LCS’s predecessor fired Standard Missiles most of its life span, which is the primary function of these little OHP Frigates in our Allied navies.
    “…and the RFI itself even makes the same argument that Navy officials have been making for years, that the small surface combatant shouldn’t have the same capabilities as a large surface combatant but rather should be able to take on lower-threat missions and allow cruisers and destroyers to handle more complex work around the globe.” The only reason this argument was ever made was to save money. The fallacy of the analysis provided is that the threat to any surface combatant in the modern battle space is no longer the low end, lack of capability in the ASCM arena as demonstrated by the USS Mason (DDG-87) off of the coast of Yemen. In fact if the specification is capable enough, some of our older DDG-51s may be replaced/upgraded versions of the current FFG(X) design under consideration.
    Lack of mention of ice-hardened Arctic/Antarctic capabilities is conspicuous, striking, and short sighted.
    I also saw no mention of US Navy Survivability Standards w/r/t watertight integrity and compartmentalization at any level. Honor the sacrifice of those who have gone before creating and perfecting that standard, then honor those who currently serve.

  • Angie Nathan

    Yeah, I’ve had strange looking patty melts at Norms
    I’ve had dangerous veal cutlets at the Copper Penny
    Well what you get is a breaded salsbury steak in a shake-n-bake
    And topped with a provocative sauce of Velveeta and uh, half-n-half
    Smothered with Campbell’s tomato soup
    See I have kinda of a uh…well I order my veal cutlet
    Christ it left the plate and it walked down to the end of the counter.

    —Tom Waits Intro to Eggs and Sausage

    I understand what we order seldom looks anything near the menu photos or tastes quite like the advertised descriptions. I understand that there are two different numbers when you order cable or any other such service, one is for the new customer and the other is for the existing customer. In my experience operator A is helpful and nice and operator B if you can survive the hold time either wants to end your call in less than a minute or can barely speak English (or both). But how far off the rails does a program have to go before it is called out for what it is?

    I say whoa, whoa, whoa,…where all of a sudden is this the LCS narrative coming from that the LCS was never intended to be a combat ship? Littoral COMBAT Ship….ahem? This ship was to be the cutting edge of the future, the Swiss Army Knife, the advanced lean mean fighting machine.

    Congress was sold on a program that cost billions of dollars to chase pirates and drug runners and the occasional waterborne terrorist? Quite the opposite, there was more hoopla surrounding these ships and supposed “capabilities” than all of your other typical programs combined. There were cable documentaries, newsprint, online news, TV news, so on and so forth, it is not to difficult to rewind back a few years to witness all of the kool aid that was being passed around.

    What I see is that the taxpayer spent $65,000 at the local dealership for a new customized sports car only later to be told it was on back order for two years. When the date arrives to finally drive their new car home the dealership shoves a flaming dumpster out into the lot along with the same salesman trying to sell next years model!

    I have an idea, lets put the shipyards who built the flaming dumpsters on welfare for sake of the workers or our industrial base. INCREDIBLE…and by the way the LCS program is by definition a dumpster fire and it is still raging. Why is it only ok when it is just the taxpayers getting burned?

  • NavySubNuke

    “In many ways, this FFG(X) design goes beyond what today’s LCS can do, particularly as it relates to surface warfare.”
    An admittedly low bar, considering the current LCS’ complete lack of any real surface warfare capability against anything larger than a pleasure craft full of pirates.Still it is nice to know the Navy is at least interested in arming these ships.
    “The RFI states the frigate should be able to conduct independent operations in a contested environment or contribute to a larger strike group, depending on combatant commander needs.”
    Imagine that – a Navy warship actually capable of engaging the enemy in combat and emerging victorious. You’d think the need to do this would have been obvious but apparently the LCS program office though the “combatant” part of the ship’s title was optional. Hopefully the FFG(x) program office keeps their eye on the ball.

    • Curtis Conway

      The LCS Program was designed to budget in a [perceived] benign environment. What a combatant was redefined to include something with the LCS’s limited capabilities. We are going to live withe the results for a while.

      • PolicyWonk

        Sadly, after $36B dollars spent when all said and done, the USN will still be without a viable littoral combat platform. LCS sailors manning these ships are all too well aware of how badly the ships they are assigned to compare to other navy’s combatants of similar size (let alone smaller).

        • Curtis Conway

          Sad state of affairs. Where has my Navy gone? Today the US Navy neither honors the sacrifice of those who have gone before and paid with their blood precipitating US Navy Regulations for Survivability, or the sacrificial service of those who have to serve on something that lacks the ability to defend itself against its most likely demise (TBMs, supersonic ASCMs). Hopefully the new frigate solves these problems. I hope we have time to achieve the new goal.

          • PolicyWonk

            Indeed – I think we’ve both been astonished at how anyone could pretend to design something called a “littoral combat ship” that completely ignored all the hard-won lessons of littoral combat, and didn’t include/consult NECC in the requirements, etc.

            That anyone would create a ship of that size class that didn’t even have the room for growth to bring it up to rough parity with potential peer adversaries is extraordinary – let alone an appalling use of taxpayer funds.

            If we aren’t going to completely arm the next frigates, then at least they should build them to the level-2 standard, and have sufficient room for growth, with standard mounts, etc., so that they can be up-gunned/armed without much fanfare. It much easier to create a fighting ship that’s built to take punishment when you have a solid sea-frame to start with.

            Neither LCS class has that virtue – hopefully the new frigate design will.

    • Duane

      There you go again with your incessant anti-LCS trolling.

      The LCS is fully capable of engaging in surface warfare, against both swarming small vessels (it does this better than any other warship in the world, including our own DDGs) as well as larger warships with its OTH ASMs.

      The capabilities that are added in the new spec are aerial defense, and possibly a VLS that would increase the number of missiles from the twin, 4-missile deck mounts now being fitted to the LCS. Conceivably, the VLS could mount a much larger number of ready to fire missiles (perhaps as many as 32), but the tradeoff is that this consumes valuable hull volume in a small warship. After getting design submissions, the Navy will have to decide what is the minimum number of VLS slots. The only reason to increase the VLS far above 8 missiles is to accommodate the proposed aerial defense role of the SSC.

      I personally believe that the Navy will end up scrapping the aerial defense role for the SSC, which is merely optional in this spec, because it will push the cost per vessel to far above one billion, and will cost too much internal hull volume, thus restricting its other missions too much., Just like the old saying, you can’t put 10 pounds of sh*t in a 5 pound bag.

      The final cost of an aerial defense SSC will end up probably somewhere between $1.2B to $1.5B , and thus defeat the whole purpose of the SSC as a relatively cheap surface warship .. for just a few hundred million more you get a full fledged Aleigh Burke carrying upwards of 100 or more missiles, a large proportion of which is for area (not own ship) aerial defense. For anti-surface warfare you really don’t need more than 8, perhaps as many as 16 cells in a VLS.

      • NavySubNuke

        Duane – good to see you back. I’ve missed your lies and half truths.
        I wondered what line you would take in defending the LCS now that previous comments about thinks like LRASM have collapsed like the empty shells that they were.
        Switching tactics to using lies and half truths to attack the Navy’s attempt to build a real frigate is a good choice for you — it won’t make you any more correct but it should keep you from looking as foolish as you did back when you were promising LRASM would be flying from LCS years before even Lockheed Martin said it would be.

        • Duane

          You’re as always a real silly piece of work, dude.

          The Navy is in the midst of evaluating OTH missiles for the LCS, and likely also the future frigate designs, as we speak. So far the only real competitor left that hasn’t withdrawn is the NSM. The LRASSM is still in development, including development of a deck mount launcher. Really, Mr. Unreality internet troll, just read what the US Navy has repeatedly announced, and performed. I merely discuss what the Navy has already done .. and you are busy saying it ain’t so.

          • NavySubNuke

            LOL. The guy who spoke so excitedly about how awesome LCS was going to be once it had LRASM is now calling me Mr Unreality and saying he only talks about what the Navy has already done.
            Thanks for the laugh Duane. As I said I wondered what nonsense you would come up with when you finally dragged yourself back out to start being an LCS cheerleader again.
            No worries though – I realized you are handicapped by your intellect and aren’t able to think critically.

          • Duane

            The LCS will have the LRASM, probably not until 2019 or 2020. The missile itself is still under development, and adapting it to a deck launcher is work that is currently underway by the Navy. I don’t get excited about anything .. I just relate facts, not BS and unsupported opinion. These are facts. If you don’t like the facts, complain to your Congressman.

    • PolicyWonk

      I’m somewhat heartened by the paragraph that states this ship is supposed to be a real combatant: something the LCS was never intended to be, according to the former CNO (Adm. Greenert).

      Here’s hoping they stick to this premise.

  • Chesapeakeguy

    I wish the USNI would provide an in-depth analysis of the 57mm gun that is mentioned here. There is something that isn’t adding up. It is the main gun armament of the LCS. It is in service with other navies around the world. It always seems to be a candidate for future ship designs that are often discussed on venues like this, including this particular article. But in the very recent past, it has also been rejected as the secondary gun armament of the Zumwalt class. According to the program manager of that project, it had nothing to do with weight or size issues, it had everything to do with the gun not working as advertised, and not being able to meet its mission parameters. There was a discussion on these boards just a few months ago where the ‘virtues’ of the LCS and the 57mm were hashed out ad nauseum. Obviously the Navy has confidence in it. But why such a huge discrepancy as far as how the 57mm’s capabilities are perceived? Like I said, the Zumwalt program manager (Capt. Jim Downey) had nothing good to say about it. It seems tome that someone has to be wrong here.

    • Secundius

      Depends on who the Soundboard is?/! One variation class for retaining the 57mm Gun and adding two additional single 30mm Guns to the design. While at the same time Loosing the 20mm CIWS, in favor for the SeaRAM…

      • Chesapeakeguy

        I do not know what that term refers to (“who the Soundboard is”) Does that refer to the evaluating team? Also Secundus, I am not advocating for a position visa vis these weapon systems. I’ll leave that to the experts. But it IS reality that the 57mm was rejected after thorough testing by the Zumwalt project folks. It is my hope that the ships that operate the 57mm don’t ever fond themselves coming up short when they need it most.

        • Secundius

          My understanding was the 57mm replacement was for the FFG(X)!/? NOT the Zumwalts’…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            The program managers of the Zumwalts originally had the 57mm as it’s secondary gun armament. It was designed in. But upon extensive testing, they said that it didn’t meet their requirements as far as ‘lethality’ and ‘dependability’. I mean, “Ouch!” They then replaced them with 30mm guns. Again, “Ouch!”. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I DO want to know why this gun is deemed adequate for one ship and others but not for the Zumwalts. It had nothing to do with space or weight issues. But to me that is profound…

          • Secundius

            That because the 30mm’s have a Water Jacket for Longer Sustained Rates of Fire. As far as I know, nobody’s tried to Water Jacket the 57mm Bofors before…

          • sferrin

            But those 30mms suuuuuuuck.

          • Secundius

            The 30’s have a Dual Feed Magazines that can be Hot-Swapped Reloaded on the Fly…

          • Duane

            The Mk110 has the ability to fire its complete magazine (120 ready rounds, 1,000 rounds stored in the mount) at a firing rate of up to 220 rpm. The reality is, with its “one round, one kill” system (i.e., EOTS, radar ranging system, and precision guided rounds with multiple fusing options), you only need one round per target. The fast firing rate allows any conceivable number of small boat targets to be targeted and destroyed in seconds, not minutes.

          • Secundius

            I know about the “Smart Projectiles” of the 57mm?/! But even a “Smart” 57 fired Close to the Waters Surface can Loose Track or be Blocked by a Sea Swell in the Wrong Place and Time of Trajectory of the Projectile…

          • Duane

            Yes, of course, no weapon system ever operates perfectly. Even our venerable old Tomahawk missiles, which have been in the Navy arsenal since I served back in the 70s, still experiences misses (2 of the 61 TLAMs fired at the Syrian air base after the chem weps attack did not function correctly). Any gun round can misfire, any operator can screw up the targeting operation, etc. You’re picking nits. Overall, the Mk 110 57mm weapon system with its current munitions is the state of the art today in defending against small boat swarms … from its range to its targeting system to its speed of fire to its volume of fire to its high tech multi-mode guided multi-fuzed projectiles, no other gun system on the planet comes anywhere close to matching it.

            That’s why our Navy and Coast Guard and 19 other navies of the world selected, use, and depend upon the Mk 110. Someday a better weapons system will come along, but today, it’s the peak of anyone’s capability in that realm.

          • Secundius

            The BEST Anti-Swarming Gun of WWII was the Bofors 40x311mmR/56-caliber Autocannon…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            But again, that is NOT why it was rejected by the Navy.

          • Duane

            That’s the cover story the program manaqer used to excuse the fact that his ship was overweight and vastly over budget, and was required to reduce weight topside and to reduce costs. The essential failure of that program manager was that his ship class got cut from 33 hulls to 3 hulls on his watch. Yet you keep citing him as the ultimate expert, when the Navy completely refuted his performance and chose instead to use the Mk 110 on a 52 ship class (now subdivided into a 40 ship and a 12 ship class) that is the worlds best small boat swarm fighter, bar none.

            Facts are such stubborn things, dude. You might consider facts, for once, and quit your ax grinding.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Oh, here we go again. “Axes to grind”, now ‘cover stories’. Do tell ‘dude’, where did the Navy refute HIS performance? You beloved LCS was cut WAAAYY back as far as their numbers go. I reckon THAT program manager is hence just as big of a failure, eh Duane? The ONLY thing keeping the LCS in production is the usual political infighting over the JOBS at the shipyards involved. The Zumwalt manager made the call about how BAD the 57mm was when they tested it. Maybe THEY undertook REALISTIC tests with it! But I would cite HIS expertise anytime over YOURS! What is it with your obsession about how good the LCS/Mk110’s are? Do you make money from them? Are you a tech rep for any aspect of them (not that I will ever expect an HONEST answer from you)? But I’ll throw it out there. You keep denying FACTS.

          • Secundius

            I’m not saying the Mk.110 was a BAD Choice for the Zumwalt, or even a Bad Gun design. But consider that the Zumwalt was “Conceived” back in the Early 1990’s and the USS Cole was Nearly Sunk by a Slow-Moving Go-Fast in October 2000. The Mk.110 has a Maximum Depression angle of minus 10*, while the 30’s Maximum Depression angle of minus 20*. The USS Cole was nearly sunk because the G0-Slow was able to “Slip Under the Guns” of the 20mm CIWS maximum depression angle of minus 25*…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Well, obviously the folks building and evaluating the Mk110 decided that it WAS a ‘bad choice’ based on their testing of it.

            Per the Cole, they didn’t even react to the boat approaching them. The Rules Of Engagement worked against them too. That had nothing to do with equipment limitations. And also, they were a siting target.

          • ShermansWar

            “Well, obviously the folks building and evaluating the Mk110 decided that it WAS a ‘bad choice’ based on their testing of it.”

            Uh, Yah. That’s what we’ve been saying….

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Which is what I have been questioning. There are articles ‘out there’ that are now openly questioning the Mk 110 for ALL ships, present and future, because of the decision to reject it on the Zumwalts. But below are some of the program manager’s own words about it. To me it is not only an eye opener, it is scary. This new FFG that this article is all about is a candidate for it. I hope all involved give it truly realistic testing parameters. The quotes below are from an interview given to ‘Defense News’.

            The Mark 110 57mm gun, “was nowhere near meeting the
            requirements,” said Capt. Jim Downey, program manager for the DDG 1000
            Zumwalt class.

            In fact, Downey said, the 57mm gun — selected years ago for the DDG
            1000 as a close-in weapon and in service as the primary gun for the
            littoral combat ship and Coast Guard national security cutters — is
            overrated.

            “They were significantly over-modeled on the lethality,” he said.
            “The results of the actual live test-fire data was that the round was
            not as effective as modeled.”

            For the DDG 1000’s particular requirements, however, Downey said the
            30mm met more overall performance points than the 76mm or 57mm guns. All
            three guns were part of his program review, with the 30 coming in just
            ahead of the 76 and significantly ahead of the 57.

            The program manager also contends the lighter weight of the Mk46 was not a consideration.

            “That is absurd, the fact that we changed the guns for
            weights,” he said in a September interview. “The weight had zero,
            absolutely, 100 percent nothing to do with the decision on the guns.”

          • ShermansWar

            I still don’t understand why you’re talking about Zumwalts..

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Because I am responding to the replies that my original post generated. And if the 57mm is being considered for this new FFG, then THAT makes my questions about it relevant. Maybe you should go back and read the posts that got us ALL to this point! The Mk110 was REJECTED for the Zumwalts. Yet it is on board many a ship, and might be on this new class if it’s built. I want to know why it’s good enough for some and not others. The Navy rejected it for the Zumwalts because it didn’t work good enough. That ALONE should be a concern for any other ship type that operates it or might be in the future! OK?

          • ShermansWar

            right?

        • Stephen

          Remember the Stark! In harm’s way; not at the ready. FF needs a reliable propulsion system, able to assist in AAW, ASW & interdiction by small boat & unmanned assets. Harken back to “Picket-Ship”?

          • J_in_TX

            The Stark was at the ready. It was steaming with the weapons console in CIC manned. That was not the problem. The problem was the plane was designated a friendly by its IFF system since it was Iraqi. Can’t shoot a friendly without permission, which takes time to receive. They ran out of time.

          • Stephen

            Sorry, I thought the CIWS was out of service.

          • cousinbruce

            Well this is not exactly true. While the Stark was underway. CIWS was in standby and I don’t believe the SPS-49 or the SLQ-32 exemplified themselves.

          • J_in_TX

            They were tracking the plane and were aware it appeared to be flying an attack pattern. But, the IFF required a manual override by the weapons console operator. That required permission from the chain of command. That wasn’t received in time.

          • cousinbruce

            I don’t think so. I deployed over there twice after the Stark was hit and even so I don’t remember that aircraft (Mirage F-1) ever squawking IFF when they flew over the Gulf even so that wouldn’t matter they would’ve had to be squawking mode 4 (NATO military only) for the conditions you indicate to even come into play

          • J_in_TX

            Well, you may have deployed over there, but I was on the Stark. Went aboard right after the attack. I got the story straight from the weapons console operator that was manning it that night. I knew many of the survivors. Several of them worked for me.

          • cousinbruce

            I was on a FFG-7 Class ship that arrived 2 months after the Stark Incident and stood watch in CIC. Okay its been a while since those events took place and I will say no more about it but I saw what the Navy released as a final report and I do remember SOME issues regarding watch station status, CIWS mode, SPS-49, and the SLQ-32 but I don’t recall anything concerning IFF. Now how accurate it was IDK.

          • J_in_TX

            Then you know as well that most of those reports are BS because they have to justify hanging someone out to dry, especially in a situation like the Stark. The Stark was attacked by an allied aircraft, so there has to be a cover story that the crew was poorly trained, incompetent, the equipment wasn’t ready/working, etc. God forbid the investigation told the truth that they weren’t given permission to protect themselves. The crew couldn’t have saved the ship if they were so poorly trained.

          • cousinbruce

            Well I do agree that the Navy is full of S___ sometimes. Especially back then. They did hang the CO and TAO out to dry but I always felt there where some equipment limitations that played a big part of the way it went down because as proof when we deployed the next time we had an improved EW Suite, Improved Air Search Radar and modified CIWS. Plus they showed ships company how to use the stinger missles

          • J_in_TX

            I don’t doubt there were equipment limitations. You know military equipment is cutting edge when designed, but out of date by the time it makes production a decade or 2 later. CIWS didn’t get it’s nickname for no reason.

          • Secundius

            That’s because it wasn’t a Mirage F-1, but a Falcon 50 Business Jet “Modified” to carry Two Exocet missiles…

          • ShermansWar

            Oh, we remember the Stark. Why do you think no one really objected when we invaded Iraq, knowing it had fuckall to do with 9/11 or WMDs? Go take a look at how many of our wars were fought over attacks against US ships or shipping.

            Quasi war with France
            Barbary wars
            War of 1812
            First 2 landings at Inchon (1800s)
            Spanish American War
            WWI (Lusitania sinking)
            WWII (I could cite the obvious, but war with Japan was foregone after the sinking of the USS Panay in the backwaters of the Yangtze)
            Vietnam War ( gulf of Tonkin incident)
            Iraq wars after the attack on the Stark
            US ops in Yemen subsequent to attack on USS Cole

            To name a few. We have a very long tribal memory about Naval Incidents.

            The seizure of US boats in the Persian gulf by Iran is not forgotten.

          • old guy

            IT IS A SHAME THAT YOUR CORRECT ASSESSMENT OF THE NAVAL INVOLVEMENT IS SPOILED BY YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH. May I suggest that you edit out the the invective and let the logic prevail.

    • Duane

      One guy with an ax to grind isn’t the whole US Navy. Especially when that guy was responsible for a vessel most consider a failed design.

      The 57mm gun is a great gun for its intended use. Using the Zumwalt as a measurement of design quality is hardly a strong argument to make. Though I think the DDG1000 is actually not a failed design, but rather it is a transitional design, much as many other low-volume ship classes over the centuries served to define needs and design standards for succeeding classes, and to create the lessons learned that go into developing later very successful ship classes.

      In any event, the 57mm is a superior gun for what the Navy has set forth in the performance requirements, i.e., the ability to fight off small boat swarms. The larger guns are crap for that purpose, and if you want to destroy a larger vessel, use an ASM, of which we have many available, especially if the vessel incorporates a standardized VLS as the Navy is now considering.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        Oh geezz, YOU again. The biggest shill ever to grace these boards for an entity that is trashed on an almost daily basis. I put my post out here hoping that someone credible would reply to it. Yeah, YOU know more than the program managers and ALL THE OTHERS who tested it and rejected it as a piece of junk (their conclusion, not mine). Interesting to have the Zumwalt labeled as a ‘failed design’ by someone who literally worships at the alter of the LCS! Now THAT is funny. .

        • Duane

          Yes, me again. The guy who recognizes reality, unlike you, who prefers fantasy. You much prefer your own dinky little world where your “expert” and the guy you endlessly reference is one single guy who managed a program most consider a failure that produced a grand total of 3 hulls.

          I forgot to mention that you also are also an ax grinder, and a real piece of work with your constant resort to ad hominem.

          My experts are the entire US Navy decision makers … the leaders that cut the DDG1000 down to three hulls ,, and which is building 52 hulls with the the Mark 110 57mm gun, a gun also adopted by 20 different navies and coast guard forces of the world (including the US Navy and US Coast Guard) because it is the best at what it does – killing bad guys in small boat swarms.

          But of course, you prefer your tiny little unreality world. It must get lonely.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Oh geezz Duane, now you’re in full perpetual victim mode? AGAIN? LOL. I provided these forums with everything available from the PROGRAM MANAGERS (plural) concerning THEIR dissatisfaction with the 57mm on the Zumwalts. YOU proceeded to tell us all how YOU know more than they ever will. Period. Dry your panties Duane, i do not have an ‘axe to grind’. Unlike you, I ask relevant questions. YOU on the other hand continue to try to maintain that the LCS is the greatest ship and system ever developed. The fact that the Navy has seen fit to curtail THAT well below their original program numbers tells us all about what a folly THEY view it as. But by all means, whine away.

          • Duane

            Sorry, but your’re simply grinding your ax and creating straw man arguments. I claim no status of any kind. I simply point out that the entire US Navy and US Coast Guard and 19 other national navies disagree with your one guy who managed a failed program.

            It’s called math. And apparently you don’t do math.

            You’re trolling ax grind is a tiresome schtick. Take it elsewhere.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Your whines about ‘axe grinding’ won’t cut it Duane. Yeah, the PROGRAM MANAGER and ALL the personnel involved with testing the Zumwalt and its systems have an ‘axe to grind’. What exactly would that be, seeing how here again you are presenting yourself as the ‘end all, be all’ of all matter concerning the Navy? (This oughtta be good!). Enlighten us. And ‘managed a ‘failed program’? They have those ships in the fleet or on the way. Yeah, the number has been truncated, just like they are for your beloved LCS. So please, keep babbling on.

          • Duane

            You never give up citing your failed program manager, instead of the highly successful entire US Navy, US Coast Guard, and 19 other navies of the world.

            You lose. What you call whining is actually just reciting facts that you refuse to acknowledge.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Yet you for some reason continue to ignore WHY they rejected it. Guess what genius, he wasn’t the ONLY one involved in arriving at that decision. Here’s THE relevant question: are those 19 other navies and the ships of our own CG and Navy at risk because they are fielding a product that has not been adequately tested? Has that product been misrepresented by those within the Navy and CG to the point where a substandard system that people’s lives will depend on is on board those ships? C’mon Dude, give me something snappy, something peppy.

          • Duane

            Listen, dude you’re being purposefully obtuse and dense. A discredited single source – nobody needs to consider why he so discedited himself as to cause a complete fail of a multi tens of billions of dollars ship development program. Anything and everything he ever said or did on this subject is discredited.

            You are really just arguing with the entire US Navy, the entire US Coast Guard, and all 19 other world navies that use the Mk 110 gun in favor of the 30mm or any other gun for destroying small boat swarms.

            Take it up with the rest of the world. I am not arguing – just pointing out that they decided, and you, being the pinhead that you are, disagree.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Show me how and when and where he was ‘discredited’. I’ll wait. Show me where Capt. (now REAR ADMIRAL) Jim Downey has been punished or reprimanded for the job he did! Show me where he has been censored in any way. Show me where the Navy will NOT be deploying the Zumwalts. You are beyond a joke. You spew that the Zumwalt is “a failed design”, then turn right around and post that “I’m not saying it’s a failed design”. You can’t even keep up with your own crap on here, and you’ve been exposed yet again. It’s all up there in YOUR OWN posts. You continue to carry on like a petulant, punk child on these boards. And you will continue to be called out on that.

          • Duane

            The US Navy and the US Congress cut his program down from 33 ships to 3. That decision was made because the ship his program produced was out of control and far beyond budget, with a questionable mission of long range precision fire from just offshore, yet the ship was vastly under-protected from small boat swarms, its biggest threat, because the program manager decided to go cheap and use an inferior weapon to save money and to save topside weight on a ship design that is not very stable.

            Bad decisions and bad program performance get your program cut back drastically .. which is precisely what happened.

            The program that uses the Mk 110 for small boat defense is authorized for 52 hulls, and the shipyards are now churning them out one or two hulls per year. The Navy loves the warship.

            It’s called math. The numbers don’t lie.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            “Bad decisions and bad program performance get your program cut back drastically .. which is precisely what happened”. Hmmm, LCS anybody? The LCS has been cut way back. Thus that is a failed design from a failed program manager(s), right, according to your skewed criteria? And of course you ran away from my challenge to show where REAR ADMIRAL Downey has been discredited or reprimanded or punished for what has transpired. It makes sense to cut back on the numbers of hulls given how many of the SYSTEMS, which the program managers do NOT control, have come up short (including your beloved Mk110!). The AGS isn’t up to snuff. Those COMPANIES have failed the Navy. just like they have with that piece of junk LCS. How are those ‘mission modules’ coming along, hmmm? How many are now budgeted?

            You keep spewing about ’52 hulls’ having the Mk110, I PRAY those ships never find themselves in combat where they depend on it, not after what has transpired with it being exposed for what it is, and is not. But keep your head buried in whatever body cavity you keep it in Duane, as they say, “ignorance is bliss”, so you no doubt are THE most contented individual on the planet.

          • Duane

            The LCS program has NOT been cutback … the Navy is planning to use 12 of the 52 planned hulls for an upgunned frigate version. Based upon the Navy’s realization in the last several years that naval warfare threats have evolved (i.e., relatively greater proportion of near peer navies, relatively smaller proportion of littoral combat facing different threats). The cost of the LCS has come down a great deal from the first couple hulls, whereas with the DDG1000 the costs were ballooning out of control and the program manager you celebrate so weirdly began cutting capability in order to cut costs – the age old trick of a program manager of an out of control program.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            What planet are you currently residing on Duane? Hmmm? The LCS was cut back to 32 by then SecDef Hagel. Subsequently, recent SecDef Carter compromised at 40 ships. Sen. McCain is adamant in advocating that they be halted at 24. So nobody KNOWS what the final tally will be. Given their severe limitations, nobody knows how long they will serve. I ask again ‘how go those modules’, hmmm? Military dot com (I am compelled to spell it out because this site still appears to delete any posts that has anything that remotely resembles a link) had an article this past December from the Navy’s Acquisition Chief that was titled “How the LCS ‘Broke’ The Navy”. It’s a sad tale indeed. The only reason it is still being considered for further construction has everything to do with maintaining the jobs at the shipyards involved with building it, and nothing else. In other words, it’s just another political football.

            And Duane, did you even bother to read this article? Or is basic, fundamental comprehension the real problem here? Because while it WAS true that some proposed an (upgraded) LCS as a candidate for a ‘frigate’, that now appears to be over with. It indeed looks like it ain’t gonna happen. So once more, the source of your info appears to be at odds with truth, facts, and reality.

            One last thing for now Duane, I do not defend the Zumwalt. I am well aware of its history and problems. Like the LCS in quite a few ways, it is indeed a ‘technology demonstrator’; as new concepts and approaches are tried. Obviously some have not worked out. But the program manager of ANY project involving ships will NOT decide on how many will be built. The Congress decides that. For someone who STILL presents himself as the ‘end all/be all’ for all things Navy, I openly wonder how you got that so wrong?

      • ShermansWar

        They couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn in testing because the EO fire direction system stinks

        • Duane

          Not true at all. Really, where do you get your info from?

      • ShermansWar

        You are mistaken, It does not EXCEED the requirements, rather the 57mm gun is listed as a MINIMUM THRESHOLD requirement. Read the RFI.We may very well see it end up with a 76mm gun. BTW Navy tests showed the 57mm fared miserably in tests trying to hit small maneuvering craft like Iranians boats, due to deficiencies in the EO targeting system. So there’s that.

        • Duane

          Bullhonkey … the Mark 110 57 mm gun has been fully demonstrated to hit and kill swarms of small boats more effectively than any other gun in the world, bar none. It uses a “one round, one kill” self guided multi-fused munition, has a vastly higher firing rate than the larger guns like the 76mm or the 127mm, even has a higher firing rate than the 30mm. The 30mm has no self-guided rounds, requires more than one round to actually hit its target to get a kill, assuming its unguided rounds can be placed on target.

          The only reason to include the 30mm mount is to add more rounds close in (under 3,500 yards) to augment what the 57 mm does at up to 9,000 yards.

          • Secundius

            Not exactly true!/? Orbital ATK (a subsidiary of “Glock”) has a Complete Line of LW30 Smart Ammunition. Smallest employed by the US Navy is 25x137mm for the Mk.38 mounts…

          • Duane

            First of all, the ATK LW30 is not guided …it’s strictly aim and shoot.

            Even if the Navy found and adopted self-guided 30mm projectiles, the addition of guidance would make the actual business end of the round (either the projectile mass, for a kinetic round, or the explosive power, if HEX) virtually negligible. There is only so much mass that can be packed into a small round like the 30mm. Mass varies with the square of the diameter, so it’s not a linear relationship.

            Just for comparison, the 30mm naval round has a standard munition that weighs well under 1 pound (0.79 lb for the HEX round),with only 0.12 pounds of HEX … as compared to the 5.3 pounds of the HEX/fragmentation “dumb round”projectile for the Mk 110 57 mm. The “one shot/one kill” guided munition designed especially to destroy small boat swarms for the 57mm carries a reduced weight projectile, to account for the sensing and guidance systems of the projectile, of 3.9 pounds total (vs. 5.3 pounds projectile weight for the dumb round), of which 0.54 pounds is HEX. That’s still enough to liquify the occupants of a small boat from several meters away using its 1.4 pounds of high velocity tungsten filaments, but much reduced in explosive power from the unguided round. Basically you trade projectile weight (and HEX load) for self-guidance capability.

            Take a standard 0.79 pound 30mm round with only 0.12 pound of HEX, then add in the sensing and guidance system further reducing the HEX load and total projectile weight, and you’re left with something like 0.01-0.02 pounds, or about 1/16 to 1/8 of an ounce of HEX. That’s effectively equivalent to firing m-80 firecrackers at your enemy. Hardly lethal.

            For further comparison, a standard US Mk 67 hand grenade contains about 0.4 pounds of Composition B explosive … about 40 times what one of your tiny 30mm self guided munitions would contain, and about 25% less than the load in the Mk 295. Assuming you can even put rounds into the target, which of course the 30mm cannot do from beyond 1/3 the range of the 57mm. The electro-optical targeting system on the 30mm gun is identical to the targeting system on the Mk 110 57mm gun, so there is no targeting advantage for one over the other for dumb rounds … and the 30mm gun does not have a built in radar ranger as does the Mk 110.

          • Secundius

            HEX was invented in 1898 by the Germans?/! If it wasn’t Sufficiently Powerful, Neither NATO or the US Military would be STILL using it…

          • Duane

            I am just using “HEX” as a generic indicator of “high explosive”, which is “high” relative to dynamite … it can come in several chemical forms, such as plastique or Composition B, etc..

          • Secundius

            CORDITE was invented by the British in 1889!/? And is used as Solid Rocket Fuel for Boosting Missiles out of VLS. Cordite is a Favorite because of Long-Term Storage and Seawater Friendly. Martin-Baker Ejection Seats use Cordite as a Propellant…

          • nekulturny

            That so? I thought cordite was a writer’s cliche that went out with safety-catches on revolvers.

          • Secundius

            My 98k Mauser (Frankenstein) with 20-round Trench Magazine and Type 38 Barrel STILL fires 7.92×57 with “Cordite” Propellants almost a Hundred Years Old. And STILL Shoots Straight and True to the Target…

    • ShermansWar

      It takes up less space and weight and costs less than a 76mm gun so they want so they can have VLS.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        What are you referring to? The 57mm? Or the 30mm that replaced the 57mm? Regardless. weight nd space and costs had NOTHING to do with why they gt rid of the 57mm. The Managers of the program itself said that is didn’t work as advertised. Their claims, not mine.

        • ShermansWar

          You lost me. I’m talking about a 76 instead of a 57mm and you’re talking about why they bought the 30 for the zumwalts instead of the 57? did it sound like I was advocating for the 57?? we’re talking about why a 57 on a frigate instead of a 76, not the Zumwalt. This here thread is about an RFI for a frigate…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Well you lost me with your reference to “It” and not providing anything else. And YOU responded to MY post. All I asked on here is for an honest evaluation of the 57mm due to the undeniable fact that the folks testing the Zumwalt found it wanting. I also pointed out WHY they rejected it. None of my posts on here addresses the actual FFG(X) that this article is about. The 57mm IS mentioned as a candidate for this new Frigate. Which will continue to prompt me to ask why the discrepancies as far as how the 57mm is viewed? It was rejected for the Zumwalts. It was replaced on it with 30mm guns. Period. As for this new FFG(X) I just want them to have the best possible systems that actually work. But I do believe the questions are fair and vital.

          • ShermansWar

            Well, you can question it if you want. I have my opinion of it based on testing, and it’s junk. It’s EO stinks, and it can’t hit a speedboat going over 6 knots. That’s all I need to know.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Well put!

    • ShermansWar

      I read one somewhere, the 57mm couldn’t hit small boats unless they were moving 5 kts or under, due to lousy EO targeting system.

      • MarlineSpikeMate

        It just shot a drone out of the sky…

        • Ctrot

          A drone that was flying a steady course, no maneuvering.

          • Stephen

            That was always my concern; we could obliterate a stationary target & ruined several towed arrays. We didn’t have the challenge of trying to hit an evading target.

          • ShermansWar

            We did. The small boats had to be moving like 5-6 kts or we couldn’t hit ’em. Lousy EO targeting system.

          • Secundius

            In June 1942, the US Navy did a Study on what it took to Shoot-Down ONE Japanese “Kamikaze” during the Battle of the Coral Sea!/? Breakdown as follows: ~ 65 .50-caliber BMG rounds, ~617 20mm rounds, ~442 40mm rounds, ~87 3-inch rounds, ~688 5-inch rounds (of which 346 were Proximity Fused).

            A Proximity Fuse cost ~$18.00 in 1942 (~$217.50 in 2017 Prices) and the 5-inch Naval Shell cost ~$700.00 in 1942 (~$10,519.54 in 2017 Prices). Just to Shoot Down ONE Japanese Plane worth ~$65,000.00 in 1942…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Is that $65k figure in 2017 dollars, or the actual cost for 1942?

          • Secundius

            You probably COULDN’T get a Vintage Japanese WWII Aircraft of ANY KIND for less than ~$2-Million USD in 2017, let alone buy one NEW directly from the Manufacturer…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            OK. But the question stands.

          • Secundius

            Maybe over inflated by 1942 prices!/? I was being generous in cost. But still less than $100-Grand. The Grumman F6F Hellcat, cost ~$35-Grand in 1942. But it STILL Cost More than 5-Times their Production Cost to Shoot Down ONE Aircraft…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            There’s no agenda in my question. I did make a mistake though, I didn’t see that the $65k figure was for the cost of a Japanese plane, I thought that was the dollar figure for the cos of the ammo used to shoot that plane down. My bad. The reason I asked is because of perspective. I took your post as a pronouncement that shooting down a plane back then was fairly expensive. But per that ‘perspective’ I mentioned, if spending whatever the final tally was in 1942 dollars for expending roughly 1900 rounds of various sizes (per the stats you provide here) to shoot down a plane that cost $62k that is attacking a ship that costs in the millions of dollars is a pretty good deal if you ask me. In either 1942 or 2017 dollars if the shootdown is made then its a bargain.

          • Secundius

            The probability of a “One-to-One” is Greater in 2017, than it was in 1942. But “No Less” Expensive!/? Even with Introduction of “Lasers”, it’s still going to be Expensive. When you Factor in the Cost of What its Going to Take to power those lasers on anything at an “All Out War Level of Engagement”. Right now their a “Novelty”, but So was the “Wright Flyer”. Before it became a Weapon of War…

          • Duane

            You’re only discussing a weapons qualification shoot for the new crew of an LCS. That was not a test of the weapon – it was a test of the ship and the crew.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            And YET YOU cited that very same ‘drone shooting’ as proof of how great it is. NOW it was merely a ‘weapons qualification shoot’? You can’t even keep up with what yu spew on these pages from article t article.

          • Duane

            I never used the drone shoot as proof of anything .. take it up with USNI … they published the video, which shows the Mk 110 in a demo shoot, not a weapons test. You’re arguing over nothing.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            You LIE again. You most certainly referred to the video of that shoot down as ‘proof’ of how ‘infallible it supposedly is. that staged. level flight. You can’t even keep up with the manure you’re always shoveling on this venue!

          • Duane

            You’re nuts dude, out of control. See a a doctor about your problem .. I’m done responding to a nut on the internet.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            I’m sure all of us who speak truth to your BS are judged as ‘nuts’ by the likes of you. YOUR OWN WORDS on these forums Duane. I guess this is progress, you didn’t utter the term ‘trolls’ here. LOL. You really are your own worst enemy. You’re ‘done responding’ because you’ve been exposed yet again, and you have no answers. You are proof yet again that the truth will always will out. Perhaps you should try embracing it going forward? Can’t hurt.

          • Ctrot

            So you’re admitting that the weapon hasn’t been tested, which was my point.

          • Duane

            You’re incredible as a straw man arguer.

            I wrote no such thing. There is no need to test the performance of the Mk 110 weapon because it is fully tested and accepted and installed as the Navy’s standard primary small boat swarm defense weapon. The demo was a test of the crew.

            If you take a drivers test in a Chevy Malibu to get your driver’s licence, the tester is not testing to see whether the Chevy is an acceptable vehicle .. it it testing to see whether you as the driver are competent or not.

            Every new warship goes through extensive pre-operational testing, to determine both the condition of the specific systems onboard the ship to see if they were installed and are maintained properly, per the specs, and if the crew is properly trained and prepared to operate the systems. Such tests are not for the purpose of determining the quality of the ship’s design.

          • Ctrot

            The Mk 110 has been tested yes, but not aboard the LCS with only electro optical fire control in a real world scenario.

          • Duane

            Yes it has

          • Ctrot

            Let’s see the video.

          • MarlineSpikeMate

            Drones don’t fly very steady, if you haven’t seen.

          • old guy

            We helped develop a seaplane UAV for Navy (SEA SCOUT) which could dwell on the surface until needed and then take off and maneuver to shoot at an adversary.

          • MarlineSpikeMate

            Target drones I should say.

          • Ctrot

            I saw the video, straight steady course.

      • Duane

        Not true. Used all the time for maneuvering targets, both surface and aerial. The 57mm does not require even that it “hit” the target with its guided munitions (guided by a combination of electro optical or laser designator), since it uses a proximity fuse (as one of three fusing options selectable by the fire control system when fired) that has a high explosive fragmentation warhead that only needs to be within a few meters of the target to destroy it. Thiis has been demonstrated repeatedly … you are just reporting old tired debunked internet BS arguments that the trolls here make a living repeating.

        • ShermansWar

          You have issues. Everyone who disagrees is a troll. OK. Not that they believe what they think, but they’re just saying it and citing studies to get a reaction from YOU. Whatever dude.

          • Duane

            I have no issues. You trolls, who refuse to recognize that you lost your poor arguments and that the Navy has fully decided on using the Mk 110 for primary defense against small boat swarms, as evidenced again in the new Navy spec for the SSC that we are discussion.

            The people with issues are those who refuse to accept decisions already long made.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        I read that as well.

    • MarlineSpikeMate

      It was not added due to cost.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        Not true. It didn’t WORK, not the way they needed it to. It was not a weight issue, it was not a space issue, it was not a cost issue. All of those factors were well known, that’s why it was originally designed in.

        • MarlineSpikeMate

          Yeah it was a cost issue… have to be silly to think the 30mm is more capable than the versatile 57mm.

          • Secundius

            It was what, ~$800-Grand for the LRLAP apiece?/! They probably thought by going to a Smaller Secondary Gun Round, would probably Offset the Price of the LRLAP’s…

          • Chesapeakeguy

            No, it was NOT, in any way, shape, or form. I’m gonna post the very words of the Zumwalt program manager AGAIN ON HERE. The following are all from the same Defense News article of Oct. 13, 2014. He states quite unequivocally that replacing the 57mm had everything to do with its performance, and nothing else. Weight issues, space issues, cost issues, all were irrelevant. The Mk110 was THE gun they wanted for swarm attacks and other scenarios. It didn’t pan out.

            From that article….

            And the reason for dropping a 57mm weapon for a 30mm may be more surprising.

            The Mark 110 57mm gun, “was nowhere near meeting the requirements,” said
            Capt. Jim Downey, program manager for the DDG 1000 Zumwalt class.

            In fact, Downey said, the 57mm gun — selected years ago for the DDG 1000 as a close-in weapon and in service as the primary gun for the littoral combat
            ship and Coast Guard national security cutters — is overrated.

            “They were significantly over-modeled on the lethality,” he said. “The
            results of the actual live test-fire data was that the round was not as
            effective as modeled.”

            What’s more, Downey said, when the program asked the Naval Weapons
            Laboratory at Dahlgren, Virginia, to re-evaluate the two guns, the Mark 46 30mm came much closer to meeting the program’s requirements.

            “The Mark 46’s lethality of its rounds met or exceeded the requirement,” he
            said. BAE Systems, which makes the 57mm gun, declined to comment.

            Downey declined to discuss specifics of the requirement, repeatedly citing
            classification concerns. But, he said, the 30mm was nearly equal to the 57mm or better, in multiple areas.

            “It is classified but it gets into the range of the threat — the approach of
            the threat, what the make-up of the threat is and how it would maneuver, how it
            would fire against our ship. There is a whole series of parameters that are
            very specific on what the threat is and how you take it out through a layer of
            defenses.”

            Downey admitted that when told the Mark 110 was no longer on track to meet
            his program’s requirements, it “was not what we expected to see.”

            The review’s results led to a decision in late 2012 to replace the DDG
            1000’s two 57mm guns with 30mm mounts.

            For the DDG 1000’s particular requirements, however, Downey said the 30mm met more overall performance points than the 76mm or 57mm guns. All three guns were part of his program review, with the 30 coming in just ahead of the 76 and significantly ahead of the 57.

            Other observers point at a comparison of the relative weights of the gun
            mounts, where the difference is striking. The 57mm mount weighs 12 to 14 tons
            with ammunition, the DDG 1000 program office said, while the 30mm comes in
            around 2 tons.

            Downey virtually spat out his disdain for suggestions the swap had anything
            to do with weight.

            “That is absurd, the fact that we changed the guns for weights,” he said in
            a September interview. “The weight had zero, absolutely, 100 percent nothing to do with the decision on the guns.”

          • MarlineSpikeMate

            What a joke. Performance of the 57 mk110 used around the world and highly proven in test after test vs a 30mm cannon derived from a amphibious fighting vehicle that never came with 1/10 the range.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            That might be, but all I can say is take that up with those who made the decision. The program manager referred to some aspects of it that is classified’. They claim they tested the Mk110 extensively. Remember (again) that the Mk110 was THEIR weapon of choice for the anti-swarm mission. Reading their reactions to the testing, you can sense their disappointment in those developments. And this is why I posted my ORIGINAL musings about it. Why such a disparity that involves the out-and-out rejection of the Mk110 for one new class of ships, yet the OTHER major new ship class adopts it? And also remember that the embracing of the 30mm has to do with them needing something. The 76mm didn’t pan out either. I’d just like to her a viable answer from the Navy to these questions.

          • MarlineSpikeMate

            The gun works as advertised on platforms it is on, plane and simple. The Zumwalt not going with it has nothing to do with the proven weapon.

            From the LCS, is has been demonstrated very effective against boat swarms. You can read the reports and even watch the videos on youtube showing it out performing the two 30mm on the ship. It also has performed well in the anti air role, shooting down drones.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            It is the ‘proven design’ that they were trying to make work. There was nothing exotic about its installation on the Zumwalt. They determined that it wasn’t up to snuff! And we can differ about the claims that it has ‘proven to be effective against swarm attacks while part of the LCS’. I invite one and all on here to read the 2016 DOT&E report about the LCS. Quite a bit of that is devoted to the Mk110. While some things are judged to be OK and acceptable as far as SOME aspects of its operation, quite a bit slams it. There is a reference about how the LCS-2 experienced 114 days of the Mk110 being ‘inoperative’. For those who claim it’s about not training the crews adequately, well, as you and others have stated, it’s been around for some time and is on quite a few other platforms, so what would make the LCS so unique that their crews can’t properly learn how to operate them?

            I’ve seen quite a few demonstrations of the gun on TV and online. Yes, they can be impressive looking. The DOT&E cites whether much of the testing IS realistic when it comes to the Mk110s on the LCS. Those are their words, not mine. And, in fairness, the DOT&E reports are not about determining if systems or projects or programs work, or do not. They are there to evaluate where any of those things stand at any given time. You and others on here keep stating that it’s a ‘dumb decision’ to replace 57 mm guns with 30 mm ones. I don’t have any opinions about that. All I’ve been doing on here is mentioning that the Zumwalt dropped it, and taking yours and others points about the extensive use of it, asking why that is? Period. I can’t really do any more than that.

          • MarlineSpikeMate

            You are trying to draw some correlation on the Zumwalt dropping the MK110, while hinting this means its a bad gun on the LCS, despite successful testing on that platform and in many navies around the world.

            “It’s been around for some time and is on quite a few other platforms”
            Which ones? The USCG?

            I think driving several remote controlled boats at high speeds and shooting at them with the gun is quite realistic, as is shooting at high speed drones, but surely YOU have a better way to go about it. Please do share.

            I’m not saying it was a “dumb decision” to drop the 57mm from the Zumwalt. Cost savings have to be justified, and maybe the 30mm is a better compliment in terms of specifications to the big guns she has, but to say that a 30mm tank gun is better than the MK110 is laughable, as many navies around the world would agree. LCS can’t be a scape goat for a system used all over.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            I am not trying to ‘draw a correlation’ or conclusion or anything else. I asked a legit question. Why you and some others on here have such a problem with that is beyond me. There are plenty of sources out there, OFFICIAL sources, that are not charitable to either the LCS or the Mk110. To be fair, both of them have their share of proponents, like yourself. But you keep trying to argue with me about something that I have made NO claims about. I have REPORTED the claims of others, and why they made those claims. For the UMPTEENTH time, take your dissatisfaction with all that up with those making the claims. How hard is that? But that list is a lengthy one, and appears to be getting longer.

            You question my statement about the Mk110 being on ‘other platforms’. YOU are the one touting it’s success, yet you don’t know what other NAVIES are using it? Seriously?

            I’m going to close this post with a direct question to you and any others on here who believe as you do that the Mk110 is such a great system: Does it not worry you that such deficiencies are reported with the Mk110 as far as one major ship program goes, but that it appears to be all well and good in the other platforms it is operating on or planned for? Hmmm? Or is it your contention, like some others who have weighed in on here, that the Zumwalt folks are all lying or incompetent or ‘out to get’ the Mk110? The reverse of that is: are you confident that everything is ‘Kosher’ as far as realistic testing of the Mk110 on the LCS?

    • Jason

      The 57mm is a good intermediate dual purpose gun with a range of 9 miles with standard ammo… Apparently, it is less capable of close in defense against swarming boats than the 30mm… but the 30mm only has a range of about 2 miles… which makes it far less useful for other tasks a naval gun might be needed for.

      For the Zumwalt, which already has a good longer range gun, the 30mm is lighter, cheaper and more effective. For the LCS, the 57mm is by far the better choice because it is far more versatile.

      • Duane

        No, actually,the Mk 110 is much MORE capable than the 30 mm in close in … unlike the 30mm it has precision guided rounds with sufficient high explosive and shrapnel for a single round to completely destroy a small vessel with proximity fusing. The 30mm rounds have to be aimed (no precision guilded rounds), make a direct hit, and multiple hits are required to destroy the typical small boat target. The 57mm even has a slightly higher firing rate than the 30mm. The value of the 30mm is that it adds two more gun barrels close in (under 2 miles), which is the only range it can deliver rounds. Both guns use effectively the same electro optical targeting system.

        The bottom line is that the Mk 110 is a “one round, one kill” weapons system. The 30mm isn’t.

        • Jason

          “Following a 2012 review the Navy, “concluded that the MK46 was more effective than the MK110 CIGS,” according to NAVSEA.”

          I have no dog in this fight. But apparently, the Navy believes, (for whatever reason) that as far as close in gun systems go the 30mm is better against swarming boats. Besides, the main point I was making was that different ships have different needs. If you already have a big gun that can theoretically range 60 miles… as well as a bevy of missiles that range hundreds of miles, the added value of a gun that can range 9 is rather limited. So, even if it were just weight or cost, either would be sufficient reason for the Zumwalt to go with the 30mm. But, the same calculus doesn’t necessarily hold for the LCS or the frigate.

          • Duane

            Yeah, that’s why they are exclusively installing the Mk 110 on all 52 of their SSCs, including both the LCS (both classes) and the future frigate. And that is why the Coast Guard is exclusively installing it on all of their National Defense Cutters. And that is why 19 other navies of the world are installing it on their SSCs.

            Facts are such stubborn things. Opinions, however, though equally stubborn, are acts of wilful ignorance most of the time.

            My my, how the internet trolls love to dis reality and pretend to live in their own little worlds.

          • Jason

            I am sorry, you didn’t read carefully. Before you respond again, (you’ve already responded twice) reread what I wrote… think for a second and then if you still feel the need to reply, by all means do so.

            Swarming boats are one of many uses of a gun system.. obviously there are others. The Navy… Yes, the NAVY! has concluded that for swarming attacks the Mk 46 is better than the mk110. Does that mean it is a better gun overall? No. Does it mean it is a better fit on any one of a number of other ships? No.
            It just means that in the context of the Zumwalt, with its myriad other defensive systems, because the Mk. 46 is a better at defending against boat swarms, it is a better choice… for that ship, full stop. Since that ship has ample capability to handle all other threats.
            If you can only fit one gun on a boat.. take the 57mm.. it would obviously be a better choice.
            If you only need a gun to ward off swarming boats, apparently the Navy, at least in 2012, believed the 30mm was better. Don’t know whether it had to with tracking speed, reliability… I have no clue… that was the Navy’s conclusion, not mine.

          • Duane

            It’s really not hard to follow my logic. For every US warship or Coast Guard vessel that has assigned to it a primary mission of defending against small boat swarms, the Mk 110 gun is required equipment. That includes the LCS – all 40 hulls planned – and the future frigate – all 12 hulls – and the US Coast Guard National Defense Cutters. Ditto with the other 19 navies of the world that have adopted the Mk 110.

            If you want to conclude that the gun that the US Navy specifies MUST be used in order to successfully defend against small boat swarms as one of its primary missions is inferior to another gun, they you are being illogical.

            Citing opinions that are issued by this guy or that is meaningless twaddle, useful only for endless internet arguments like some here routinely engage in. Opinions are like a certain body part that every person comes equipped with. The proof of the pudding is what the Navy and Coast Guard actually require and use.

            We see the Mark 110 57mm again being selected as the small boat swarm-fighting weapon of choice. No other, whether larger in shell diameter, or smaller, comes anywhere close to its extremely well proven performance.

          • Jason

            Once again, you can’t read.

          • ShermansWar

            Apparently you’re not good at reading an RFI Duane. The requirements listed in the RFI are specifically stated as MINIMUM THRESHOLD. That means it has to be AT LEAST a Mk 110. Not only a Mk 110. If one thing the RFI did was, it signaled flexibility and asked for costs for trade offs and options.

          • Duane

            I read very well, and unlike you, understand. The minimum threshhold means here that the US Navy will accept no primary small boat swarm defense system less capable than the Mk 110 57 mm gun system. Meaning that the 30mm gun you are so strenuously is superior won’t meet the spec, because it is far less capable than the Mk 110. If someone comes up with a superior weapon for this role, the Navy will consider it (considering cost and proven performance as well). No other gun system in the world is as capable as the Mk 110 for the stated role of small boat swarm defense.

            Are you really that dense? You cannot understand that you refute your own poor argument by citing a spec that clearly rejects the Mk 46 as the primary small boat swarm defense system, for the extremely obvious reasons of very low range, and insufficiently lethal munitions.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Ahh, here we go again. “Trolls”. Stand by as the term “Russian trolls’ is tossed around so cavalierly. Ummm, genius, it’s not an OPINION that the Navy rejected the 57mm on the Zumwalt. It’s a FACT. So there now is a public discrepancy involving it. If it works so damned well, WHY was it rejected for the Zumwalt, given that it was originally designed in? One more time, they got rid of it as a RESULT of their tests. AFTER the fact of designing it in. You can shut your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and stomp your feet and scream “I don’t wanna hear it, I don’t wanna hear it”, but your tantrums don’t change the FACTS.

          • Duane

            Not true. You are misunderstanding. The 30mm is not superior close in. The 30mm operates ONLY close in. It is a supplemental weapon for anything that manages to make it past the far longer range 57mm. I’ve already listed the capabilities that the 57mm has that the 30mm does not have. It’s easy just to read up on it, if you don’t want to take my word.

            Think of the 30mm as a backup weapon. It’s like a cop who carries a backup small frame gun in an ankle holster. He doesn’t use that because it’s superior to his main weapon, whatever it is. He has it because his main weapon may malfunction, or get taken away from him, or even just run out of ammo. The 30mm is the backup to the 57mm. It’s a very poor main weapon for small boat swarms because of its limited range (3,500 yards vs. 9,000 yards), and because its munitions are puny compared to that used by the 57mm gun.

        • ShermansWar

          a 2 lb shell does NOT guarantee a kill against anything bigger than a 20′ speedboat

          • Secundius

            Mean Projectile weight for the 30x173mm is ~12.8-ounces!/? But Bursting Charge of Projectile is ~2.0-ounces. It’s ~2-pounds for Projectile and Shell Cartridge combined…

          • Morten Poulsen

            The 57×438 mm shell is in fact 2,4 KG or ~5,3 lbs……in comparison the 30x173mm throws an anemic 360 gram /12,7 ounce shell…..and has less that 1/4 the effective range.

          • Duane

            It’s a 3.9 pound shell (the Mk 295 self-guided round – 5.3 pound for the unguided round), but the 57mm guns is not designed or expected to kill ships (though it could certainly damage a ship if targeted at a vital spot, such as the bridge). It’s primary role is to destroy small vessels in swarms.

            The notion of surface warship pitched gun battles is passe, an anachronism of the mid-20th century, and clearly obsolete in the age of long range and very long range self-guided anti-ship missiles. With ASMs having ranges of 110 nm up to 350nm or further, and packing far more explosive punch than any existing ship gun munition including the 155s on the DDG1000 class, surface warfare is now a contest of who detects who first and fires the most capable ASM first. Even a shell from a 5 or 6 in shell won’t come close to sinking a ship. In WWTwo all of the subs mounted deck guns of up to 6 in, but they were seldom used in actual battle, only against defenseless merchant ships that couldn’t shoot back, because it took anywhere from two dozen to four or five dozen direct hits to sink even a relatively small steamer (5,000 tons or less). No two surface combatants are going to engage in such an extended gun battle … an ASM or two launched from either ship or from an aircraft (all our strike fighters are equipped now with ASMs, and very soon they’ll be carrying LRASMs to hit from 350 nm out) will quickly end any such sea battle.

          • turkey

            Ah, such wisdom. I note you did not include Naval Gunfire Support mission for the mighty 2+” gun! True, the projectiles are very cool, but when you cannot get close enough to anyone but a Somali pirate to use it……
            This is the same rationale used for no guns on fighters; look what that got us; a lot of residents in the Hanoi Hilton and dead aviators.

          • Duane

            The LCS uses an integrated fire control system for the Mk 110 57mm. It also fires Harpoon and NSM ASCMs using that integrated fire control system – the NSM has twice the range of the ASCMs on any of our CGs and Arleigh Burke DDGs. LCS also uses fire control data fed to it from its MH-60R and MQ-8 drone choppers, which can range out far beyond the range of the ASCM itself as necessary to acquire a target … or it can be fed targeting data from any of our other aircraft, same as any other of our warships.

            So much for your comment, then.

          • Ed L

            Actually it is regarded as a 6 pounder.

          • Secundius

            The 57mm Bofors Complete Shell Weight is ~13-pounds, 10-ounces, while Projectile Weight is ~5-pounds, 8-ounces with a Bursting Charge of ~1-pound, 7-ounces. Keep in mind the First German Tiger I Tank KILL was in 1943, and was made by British Ordnance QF (Quick Fire) 6-pounder, 7-cwt (57x441mmR). It was also a Favorite amongst US Airborne Units in WWII because of its versatility and Kill Range…

      • Chesapeakeguy

        But NONE of that is why the Zumwalt program managers replaced the 57mm. They said it wasn’t good enough. Period. It didn’t perform as advertised or in the way they hoped it would. Capt. Jim Downey, then the overall program manager, was quite clear and open about that. His statements are all over the Internet.

      • Secundius

        But it does have a Fragmentation Round good for 14-kilometers. the 20mm CIWS can Detect a Target at 10-kilometers, but ONLY Engage the Target with Guns at 4-kilometers. It’s back to WWII “Physics”!/? Making the “Target” pass through a “Sh|tstorm” of Lead to get to you…

    • SvD

      A 5″ (127mm) is no big deal if the shipyard has a clue what exactly it is doing.

      El Radii class (MEKO A-200AN ), Algerian navy, designed by TKMS, built by German Naval Yards sports a 5″.

      The ship has a 32 cell VLS (from South Africa, but MK41 should fit) and 16 ASM.
      With just 121 m (397 ft) long and 3700-ton displacement, it is pretty light.

      These vessels have no funnel, just exhausts directly above the waterline, to reduce infrared emissions.

      The gas turbine exhaust is right about the waterjet, that is powers.

      The propulsion system is pretty unique, it is a CODAG WARP (Combined diesel and gas – water jet and refined propeller).

      You can pack a lot of useful technology into a small ship.

      Sadly, links and pictures are blocked here :/

      • FelixA9

        Damn. Those LCS ships are downright pathetic by comparison.

        • old guy

          We are in a mad race toward mediocracy. I hope VADM Moore puts a stop to it.

          • turkey

            Don’t count on the man responsible for the gross cost and schedule overrun of the FORD; got promoted anyway.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        That all sounds good.

  • sferrin

    “The Navy still has not worked out how to incorporate VLS into its frigate plans, and the RFI does not include VLS in its chart of required weapon systems but rather requests input from potential shipbuilders on how to incorporate the missile launchers.”

    Ye Gods. How hard can it be? “Ship must have 2×8 self-defense length VLS for 64 ESSM”. Let the contractors figure out “how to incorporate VLS into its frigate”.

    And how ’bout a Super Rapido 76mm with Vulcano instead of the 57mm?

    • John Dehnel

      I agree or even add something in the 90-130 mm class. Or a mix of 76 and larger too.

      • sferrin

        Going over 76mm is getting a bit much for a frigate IMO (although Knox’s and others of that era did have 5″ guns).

        • ShermansWar

          there are a lot of frigates out there today with 5″ guns

        • Ken Adams

          115 meter length ship, 2500 ton full load displacement, once boasted five 5-inch mounts, six to ten 40mm, seven to twelve 20mm, and ten 21-inch torpedoes. Let’s dust off those blueprints.

          • Secundius

            Last “Fletcher” class Destroyer was scrapped in 2011 from the Mexican Navy. Good Luck finding one that STILL Works…

    • M van dongen

      Even the LCS based saudi frig ( its lengthened ) has VLS.

      • Secundius

        It’s also NOT a Flight “0” design either…

    • Duane

      It’s not that it’s difficult to design and build a VLS … but the issue is with small vessels, space and volume are at a premium. Direct more of the internal volume to a VLS, something else must be cut back. The Navy has to design what is the sweet spot in terms of capability vs. use of internal hull volume is going to present the best value.

      I think this process, of seeking input and alternatives to consider, is really the best way to proceed. The answer, and the sweet spot in design, is not necessarily obvious.

  • Lorenzo Rodriguez

    Based on what we have seen with the LCS hull (USS Montgomery), coupled with an engineering plant that has PROVEN itself to be a fragile engineering plant (USS Montgomery, USS Coronado, USS Freedom, USS Independence), issues with the weapons systems (57mm gun, ASW systems, mine countermeasures) and a general lack of “punching power” for a ship in it’s weight class….
    Hey, you know the Coast Guard has this Frigate design that seems as if it would be a much better (and less expensive) hull to modify. At least we know the engineering plant is reliable and with all the effort being put in to fixing the identified problems, we could probably put 50 or 60 of them to sea.

    Call the LCS a lemon and recognize that something based on it’s design will suck up more resources – let’s find better ways to spend the money.

  • Jim DiGiacomo

    I’ve read elsewhere that it was the cost and weight issue behind replacing the 57mm guns on the Zumwalt with the 30mm. That is the logical explanation. The 57mm even has a higher rate of fire than the 30mm, 220rpm vs 200. Very unusual for a smaller caliber gun to have a lower rate of fire.
    We seem to be outgunned compared to other navies. Most would deploy at least a 76mm where we have a 57mm. CIWS systems usually are 25 to 40mm compared to our 20mm. Our 5 inch gun has the lowest rate of fire of any naval gun of that caliber.

    • Secundius

      Maximum Sustained Firing Rate for the 57mm is 5-seconds (18-rounds) before barrel is required to Cool Off. the 30mm is surrounded by a Water Jacket which allows for Higher Rates of Fire. Same with 20mm CIWS, NO Water Jacket. US 5-inch guns are rated for ~8,000-rounds before Barrel Replacement!/? Those with Higher Rates of Fire, usually around 4,800-rounds before Barrel Replacement…

      • Jim DiGiacomo

        Good points.

    • Chesapeakeguy

      Jim, weight and costs were NOT factors in replacing the Mk110s. It was their ineffectiveness, period. The Navy claimed that some cost and weight savings were realized after switching to the 30mm, but as pointed out, that was well AFTER the fact that the Mk110s were rejected because they just weren’t good enough. The program manager (then Captain, now Rear Admiral) Jim Downey gave an interview to Defense News where he didn’t hold back on what they discovered about the Mk 110s. Some of his quotes from that interview are below. It’s pretty ‘damning’ to say the least.

      The Mark 110 57mm gun, “was nowhere near meeting the
      requirements,” said Capt. Jim Downey, program manager for the DDG 1000
      Zumwalt class.

      In fact, Downey said, the 57mm gun — selected years ago for the DDG
      1000 as a close-in weapon and in service as the primary gun for the
      littoral combat ship and Coast Guard national security cutters — is
      overrated.

      “They were significantly over-modeled on the lethality,” he said.
      “The results of the actual live test-fire data was that the round was
      not as effective as modeled.”

      For the DDG 1000’s particular requirements, however, Downey said the
      30mm met more overall performance points than the 76mm or 57mm guns. All
      three guns were part of his program review, with the 30 coming in just
      ahead of the 76 and significantly ahead of the 57.

      The program manager also contends the lighter weight of the Mk46 was not a consideration.

      “That is absurd, the fact that we changed the guns for
      weights,” he said in a September interview. “The weight had zero,
      absolutely, 100 percent nothing to do with the decision on the guns.”

  • ShermansWar

  • Duane

    The Navy is proceeding correctly with this specification development process … though I believe that inevitably it will find that adding the air defense performance will bloat the cost way into unaffordable range, probably well over a billion a hull. Far better to build more Arleigh Burkes that are unquestionably top of the line in air defense, and leave the SSCs to handle all the other duties assigned in this spec. We don’t need a poor man’s Arleigh Burke – we need the rich version. And a bloated SSC that we can’t afford to build will result in no or few SSCs.

    The resulting frigate will likely be a lot like the existing LCS, but with less hull volume dedicated to multi-function use and with a VLS added. For that they can build a class with a cost of under $800M.

  • Marauder 2048

    From the RFI:

    “support Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block 2 and/or Standard Missile-2 Active missiles”

    Good to see the latter effort is moving forward.

  • Rob C.

    I’m glad their trying to move forward with a replacement, but i am left confused about the requirement.
    They want to make a modern version of a Radar-Picket ship, coordinating Drones as well as a bumper between the small craft and the larger combatants such as the Burkes, Nimitz/Ford Carrier and the Amphibs.

    I think they 57mm gun thing is just them trying keep costs down. Taking slightly less powerful gun in favor for Hellfire missiles and whatever replaces the Harpoon missile. I can’t understand why they’re wrestling with VLS launcher. Almost EVERY navy in world mounts VLS some form. Now their going make design a FFG, yet give vipe that they don’t want outshine the Burkes.

    I served in the US Navy, I’d feel a bit uneasy being in a undergun ship their planning to make. With Fast Attack Craft, with fast moving machine gun tottin small craft which i suspect are still overall bettered armored than this propose design.

    • ShermansWar

      they are wrestling with VLS because it they drop the SM2, and use a MK56 VLS for the ESSM it keeps the Austal hull in the competition, and gives a leg up on the Lockheed hull as well

  • Bailey Zhang

    “support Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block 2 and/or Standard Missile-2 Active missiles” what? SM-2 active missile? Meant an active seeker variant of SM-2?

  • So basically, what the US Navy wants, is a fully functional frigate such as the FREMM Frigate in the French version, Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate or even an upgunned USCG’s NSC Cutter as a Patrol Frigate.

    • Frank Langham

      I have been informed that there is now way the NSC can store enough fuel to provide adequate range for the RFI Reqs

      • ShermansWar

        it’s gonna wind up a 4500-5000 ton ship of at least 435′, I guarantee it.

        • Frank Langham

          If I cannot get a quantity of *FIVE* FFGx for the same lifetime cost of *THREE* DDG-51 (FLT-II) then it is not worth doing. … Might be better to automate a “Burke-Shorty” and just down-scale crew, weapons, and capacity.

      • ShermansWar

        What are the range reqs?

        • airider

          3000 nm at 16 knots in the RFI….not too demanding. NSC could handle this with ease based on the numbers I’ve seen.

          • ShermansWar

            that’s kinda short legged, actually. NSC is rated 12,000 miles
            I thought they’d at least ask 5000 miles

          • airider

            Based on what I’ve read in the RFI, the current LCS vendors could compete but would have some big work to do. NSC is much closer in a lot of areas but needs to do some work too. This range spec I think keeps the LCS vendors in the game for now.

            One additional bit of information to consider is that Congress directed and funded ordering more NSC’s than the Coast Guard asked for….some would argue it was just Congress appeasing to their voters in the district….my view is they wanted to keep more players in this FFG game.

        • Frank Langham

          Same as for any combat rated task group (in general terms) and, if an FFG gets cut-off from support, it may have to do an end-run around an island chain (take the long way home).

      • I think the way HII is positioning the NSC, I am betting the NSC is going to be the next frigate for the US navy.

        • Secundius

          I don’t!/? I suspect its going to be a 1/3rd Larger version of the “Independence” class. Simply because the US Navy LOVES the Ship’s ability to make a High-Speed “Bootleg Turn”…

          • If it’s speed that the US Navy wants, maybe they should look at the South African Navy and Algerian Navy’s Valour Class frigate and A-200AN Class Frigates. They have waterjets in them.

          • Secundius

            Except neither of them can make a “Bootleg Turn” at High Speed and both are Monohull Designs. Bootleg Turn at High Speed are Virtually Impossible on Monohull designs…

          • The Valour class Frigates have waterjets. I don’t know what their speed is on waterjets

          • Secundius

            Do either of them have a Retractable Azipod mounting forward of amidships on their respective hulls

        • Frank Langham

          I am good with that (looks like a capable hull), just so long as “they” do not try to make a Burke out of it (in terms of combat systems). … I realize that we cannot expect to get TWO FFGs for the price of one DDG but if you can give me FIVE FFGx (NSCx) for the same lifetime cost as THREE Burkes, I could go for that. … Perhaps, some day, every FFGx will come with its own “Sprint Class” unmanned submersible.

      • Secundius

        Both variants of the NSC, the PF-4501 and PF-4921 will share the same “Basic” features as the NSC. The PF-4501 is expected to retain the 57mm Bofors Gun, have a range of ~12,000ni @ 9kts and support a crew of ~148. The PF-4921 is expected to mount the Mk.75 Mod.0 76.2mm Gun, have a range of 9,000nmi @ 11kts and support a crew of 141. Four other ships are under consideration, 2 domestic designs and 2 foreign designs. But “Only” if the “Jones” Act of 1920 can be Suspended or Modified before the Frigate Design Competition…

        • I think you can get pass the Jones act, if the US navy buys the design rights and have it built in a US Shipyard. It’s how the USCG got the Sentinel class cutters as well. The USCG paid for the design and blueprints and then paid a US base shipyard to build it to spec.

          • Secundius

            Sure you can!/? “Bareboat designs” (aka AS IS) Hulls and Superstructure ONLY or let the US Army BUY them which “Aren’t” Restricted by the “Jones” Act. The US Army just Bought ~37 L-CAT-33’s (32.6-meter) Catamaran MSV(L)’s from France to be built in Wisconsin for the US Army Corps of Engineers…

          • WHY not, the USCG under then Admiral Thad Allen who took a ride on South Africa’s Lillian Ngoyi-class patrol vessel and that was the basis for the Sentinel class cutters in the USCG. The US Navy do the same thing by buying the rights to a European Frigate design and blueprints. Then bid the work out to a US based Shipyard to build the frigate and reward them for building them on TIME and under budget.

          • Secundius

            I suspect it has LESS to do with the Actual Wording in the “Jones” Act and MORE to do with the Politics associated with the “Jones” Act. Politicians don’t get RICH on the Merit of just being Politicians…

          • The USCG paid Damen shipbuilding the design and the rights. They then paid Bollinger shipyard to build it based on what the USCG paid for. The US Navy could do the same thing by buying the blueprints and design rights and then bid the work out to US Shipyards to build based on the design and Blueprints the US navy brought.

          • Secundius

            Bollinger Shipyards is owned by Edison-Chouset Offshore (aka LaShips). And is under Federal Investigation for Money Laundering in an Elaborate Scheme to defraud the Federal Government. According to FOX News Louisiana…

        • Beomoose

          The Jones Act doesn’t prevent the USN from buying ships largely or entirely designed outside the United States, in fact the much-maligned LCS classes each have a very large amount of non-US work in their designs. See also the Coast Guard’s (largely) Damen-designed FRC.

          Neither does the Jones Act prevent the USN from buying ships BUILT largely or entirely outside the United States, rather it’s 10 U.S. Code § 7309 which sets that restriction. And 10 U.S. Code § 7309 includes a Presidential waiver provision. It be interesting to see, if such a waiver were granted, whether the Congress and majority of the public thought the potential cost savings of importing a Frigate outweighed the costs to sovereignty and US jobs.

          Suspending the Jones Act would do nothing to allow further competitors to the FFG(X) process, but it would cripple shipbuilders like Bollinger, Vigor, and Eastern who do both Commercial and naval work and who are likely to be looking for a chance to get in on FFG(X).

          • Secundius

            The “Jones” Act does allow for Coastal Ship (Littoral) designs and “Bareboat” (As Is designs) with have to be Fitted Out in American Facilities. The US Army ISN’T restricted by the Jones Act and can and HAVE Bought complete Ships of Foreign Manufacture…

          • Secundius

            “Technology Demonstrator’s” aren’t a Patent and/or Copyright Infringement. Most Western Made Ships are Based on US Hull Lines. The “Tumblehome” design can be Traced Back to the Roman “Trireme”…

        • Frank Langham

          Yes but, in order to cram VLS and all the counter-air sensors and generators (I am told) that fuel capacity (and range) would have to be sacrificed (to some significant degree) … Do you know if the legacy (original spec) propulsion, on the NSC will provide all of the speed and endurance which are needed for task-group and independent blue-water operations and combat ?

          • Secundius

            Relying on memory, but I believe the range, including reserves was 12,000nmi at 8kts on paired MTU 20V diesels (~62.5-days endurance). Can’t remember with certainty on Series of Diesels used. I’d have to Look Up the Original Coast Guard Specifications for the class to be 100% certain. Or contact USCG directly!/? USCG has a Publication Office for those that Scale Model Ships out of Wood (Professional Modellers), which give Exact Specifications of ANY vessel asked for…

          • Frank Langham

            Sounds like ample range and endurance … I expect the USCG would not go with a slow-boat spec (considering rescue, intercept, interdiction reqs.) … Hey … I just posted a new comment (topic) called BURKE LITE (see above … May take a few minutes to get approved).

          • Secundius

            I know that two of the three proposed FFG(X) designs based on the NSC was to have ~8,000nmi at ~11kts with a crew of ~148 and 57mm gun. And the other ~12,000nmi at ~9kts with a crew of ~141 and 76.2mm gun.

            The proposed “Lockheed-Martin” entry is expected to be ~350-feet long, crew of ~100, speed reduced to ~40kts maximum, a cruising range of ~4,500nmi at ~20kts and mount a 57mm main gun with ~4 25mm guns. And nothing definitive yet on the “Austral-USA” entry. Other possible entries are from “Armaris/Orizzonite Sistemi Navali” joint entry and the other a “Navantia-iZAR” entry…

          • Frank Langham

            Well, Curtis and you and I had discussed the problems with LCS draft and the length of (even) the tactical VLS canisters … The canister farm would have to protrude well above the weather-deck. There are ways to hack the launchers for LCS deployment but I would hardly call those alternatives “elegant”.

          • Secundius

            The “Austral-USA” design is expected to be ~1/3rd Heavier in displacement and ~10% Larger overall in Dimensions, including Dry/Wet Drafts. Hopefully that will compensate for the VLS protrusions…

          • Frank Langham

            The lower the center of gravity, the better. …. The LCS are designed to chase criminals around the nooks and crannies of island chains and atolls (No?) … They are aluminum (No?) … Would YOU want to be on an Austral LCS (or FFGx) in heavy sea-states, while trying to function as part of a main battle group ? … Well … At least the Independence and the Freedom LCS have nice helo decks.

          • Secundius

            But than again, what Design Constraints states that the VLS MUST be mounted within the “Hull” of the Vessel and NOT the “Superstructure” of the Vessel…

        • Frank Langham

          Well … As far as what platform designs are already (mostly) complete and which are based upon existing production, I would have to lend my vote to the NSC, then. The crew compliment, the range, the capacity and the expected lifetime cost, per copy, all seem to be in line with both the letter and the spirit of the most recent FFG(X) RFI. … Personally, I would not wish to live or fight on anything smaller, in rough seas and bad weather. … LCS would be bobbing like corks in rough seas and the crews would be far less effective, trying to sleep and eat and pull extended shifts at battle-stations, under rough conditions (sea-state 3++).

          • Secundius

            BOTH of the Enlarged “LCS/FFX” designs are expected to weigh ~4,500-tons each. And it ONLY remains to be seen whether “HII” Submits either the PF4501 or PF-4921 designs or Go For Broke and Submit “Both” designs. My Money is on an Enlarged “Austral-USA” design…

          • Frank Langham

            So … Half the weight of a Burke … Can the Austral entry fully house tactical length VLS inside the hull ? … Forward of the wheel-house? … Not a lot of extra room for CIDS and other “junk”.

          • Secundius

            Both Astral and Lockmart ships are ~1/3rd heavier in weight, which increases physical dimensions by ~10%. Which should compensate for dimensions of VLS launchers. If not, probable Superstructure Mounting might be possible and have the Outgassing of Rocket Motors directed through Exhaust Stack. Only concept I could find of Lockmart design shows both Hull and Superstructure Mountings…

          • Frank Langham

            I prefer an elegant (effective) design, rather than a hasty kludge …
            I do think there is a place for littoral variants of the FFGx and that there is no reason not to employ various specialized variants. … Hunting smaller subs in the Pacific island chains and atols is something that a blue-water only variant cannot do as well as the LCS and variants.

          • Frank Langham

            The Austral is fast and cute and especially good for peace-time fun … They will be especially effective for cat-and-mouse ASW in the island chains but they really are not my choice for blue-water air defense, convoy escort and protecting a main battle group in the open seas. They might be pressed into service but I would prefer the correct tool for each job (and domain).

          • Secundius

            The simple reason why I suspect the “Astral-USA” design will win the Frigate Design Competition. Is it’s ability to something that nones of the Other Frigate Designs in the Competition are capable of!/? The ability to make a High-Speed “Bootleg” Turn of the Fly (a 9g 180*). And the US Navy really likes that advantage over the other Designs…

      • Andy

        This makes no sense. with 620 metric tons of fuel as HII states for the frigate design would give q range of [email protected] 3000 @ 16 would be a piece of cake. I haven’t run the numbers but I bet it will beat [email protected] 18 with one diesel.

        • Secundius

          Probably NOT using MTU Diesels, but rather MAN Diesels which are Far More Fuel Efficient and were Originally Intended for the NSC…

  • Frank Langham

    I am beginning to believe that, in the longer term, it would be best in terms of lifetime cost and performance, to adopt the very same (from scratch) design process that we employed to develop the Virginia Class SSNs …. That is, we should use BOEING’s CAD design software and processes to design EXACTLY the FFG(X) that we need, rather than to try to cobble something useful out of undesirable components. Neither of the LCS designs, nor the NSC, nor foreign Corvettes will fit the bill … We are going to buy many of these hulls and we must get this right … Get the politicians and technocrats out of the galley and give our best design and production specialists a set of practical specs and the most efficient and advanced design tools and processes that are available …. The Virginia Class SSN program has been a total win …. A superior platform with an open, modular architecture, that does, indeed, deliver the best lifetime value.

    • ShermansWar

      if you look at the RFI you’ll realize this is not going to be a corvette. it’s gonna be 4500-5000 tons. It’s gonna be a frigate, just not a monster, but definitely a frigate.

      • Grumpy Oid Goat

        The current LCS Designs both have weight issues. Instead of using these limitations, go “Clean Sheet’ or consider a modified NSC

    • Duane

      I agree that adopting “off the shelf” designs is not going to save the Navy anything in the real world. It imposes design restrictions, and design is by far the cheapest and quickest part of new ship class development. It is trying to be penny wise and pound foolish. But the Navy seems to be stressing quick performance over quality … which is a mistake.

      It really reads like the Navy wants one of the two existing LCS classes to be modified to the new spec. Doing so might cut a year out of the schedule, but that’s about it.

      • Frank Langham

        Agree … The NSC is the most promising hull and, just maybe, the inherent restrictions that the NSC hull does impose WILL be a GOOD thing … I would just as soon see a shortened “Burke-Lite” (put all aspects of the Burke Flt-2 spec on a diet). … Considering the steep acquisition and lifetime cost of going the NSC route, perhaps the wider beam and common systems of shortened Burke would allow for more modular flexibility (to accommodate upgrades and backfits) and, ultimately, a greater lifetime savings, due to commonality, with regard to parts, systems, layout, training and also the expedient adaptation of the RFI to such a well documented and familiar design. …. The Oliver Hazard Perry FF Fast Friggate(OHP) and the Spruence class destroyers and the Ticonderoga CG cruisers all exploited such a shared commonality. … Good stuff !

        • Andy

          I struggle with what the burke diet would look like such that you drive down the root of lifecycle cost. Manpower, Gas, ease of upgrade.

    • Stephen

      I’d throw my vote in that direction, if I had a vote…

    • Andy

      Exactly right!

  • airider

    I would expect, based on the very broad language in the RFI, that the Navy is leaving any available in-production option open.

    That said here’s my high level take away of what I read:

    1) The desire to support independent convoy as well as integrated strike group ops mean the current hull and propulsion plant designs of the LCS are out. Less fuel hungry propulsion, a hull better for blue water ops, and that can support the SWAP requirements are driving this

    2) The need for Grade-A shock hardening will drive a different hull and propulsion design as well.

    3) While the RFI mentions COMBATSS-21, and an Aegis derived combat system, what this really means is that PEO IWS will be involved in the combat system from the beginning and not brought in after the fact to clean up the non-standardized mess that LCS brought.

    4) The weapons loadout is leaning heavily toward VLS and a hull large enough to handle the Strike-length variant if possible. Installing “one-trick pony’s” is the least desirable option.

    5) I’m not exactly sure why there’s a continued desire for the Mk 110 gun, but my guess right now is centered on:

    – Hot production line

    – Quantity buy efficiency

    – Flexibility with the 3P ammo

    Neither the OTO Molara nor Mk45 have the 3P ammo which means the variety of rounds a ship needs to carry increases, which lowers the availability of any type of round for any particular mission.

    6) CEC, Link-16 and other links are needed to support the full spectrum of where NIFC is headed

    7) It doesn’t look like, and I hope it’s true, we’re going to waste time trying to fit a hull mounted sonar on this sucker. Active and/or passive sonar either need to be in the tail or the Helo. Keeping subs as far away as possible is the key and if a sub is above the thermocline where a hull mounted sonar might be useful, this FFG will be screwed.

    8) Not sure of the need for a 3-faced fixed phased array radar on this ship, but what I DO see is another bill payer for the EASR effort…so rotating or fixed, EASR is the goal.

    9) Nice to see the nod to the mission packages we’ve spent a ton of money on so far. It’d be a shame if that whole thing got relegated to only the LCS.

    Ultimately this is an RFI, not an RFP so expect a few more rounds of these.

    • ShermansWar

      It has to provide local air defense, that’s part of it’s mission, and the the radar is also going to be it’s targeting radar, not just it’s search radar, and you can’t provide missile defense with a rotating radar.

      It will have a TB-37 Multi-Function Towed Array array and an AN/SQS-62 Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) ( what is this?) Whats the difference between the 2?

      • airider

        I agree with your point. That said, we’ll have to see how the costs work out for rotating plus illuminators versus a three face fixed phased array both for purchase and sustainment.

        Considering other possible ways of analyzing this….Adding an Active SM-2 to the mix lowers the burden further on either radar configuration (they’ll both be EASR). If the missile has inertial guidance (most likely), the need for continuous illumination drops and a rotator at the right refresh rate could get the job done. Both S-band and X-band uplink/downlink missile are available.

        • ShermansWar

          I’m just very happy they spec’d a 3 face, I was not happy reading older suggestions of a rotating radar. I’d rather have it be more capable, if we’re going to spend the money on a hull. sounds like they intend to be able to sail it in harms way, to a point, as opposed to the LCS.

          Radar manufacturer says modules are easy to replace, but more importantly are supposed to be rated for life of ship.

          • airider

            Agree!

          • Andy

            I think having a fixed array also has to contribute to lower maintenance and increased survival potentially. Plus I don’t know how a rotating array will compete in a world of hypersonic missiles.

      • airider

        The TB-37 is a towed array….which can adjust its depth to a limited degree but other than that, just follows where the ship tows it. The Variable Depth Sonar can be “flown” to an extent under water.

        • ShermansWar

          is this considered an improvement over bow mounted sonar, or more limited?

          • airider

            Improvement….Google thermacline and how it affects sound transmission in water (or any fluid actually)

          • ShermansWar

            I get that, but it seems that they’d only have the array out sometimes, whereas they have the hulldome listening all the time, but yeah, I get it. Thanks.

          • airider

            It’s not about listening all the time, it’s about listening in the right places. Hull mounted sonars on ships are only good (to an extent) at listening above the thermocline.

            Submarines, on the other hand, have nothing but variable depth sonars regardless of where it’s mounted.

          • Andy

            If you look on line there is a document list max range on the tb-37 at around 129km and the Thales brochure lists Captas 4 at about 150km wheras they list their hull mounted array on the Fremms with 35km which is greater than their smaller hull model at 20km. Just for a little comparison on ranges.

    • ShermansWar

      CEC is listed as a req. What is NFIC, prithee?

      Need the 3 face for local area defense, at least to be able to contribute to the strike group in the agregated operations it’s called for. Also, it’s pretty clear a major role of this ship is to develop actionable intel for a larger group.

      do specs call for link 16?

      “3) While the RFI mentions COMBATSS-21, and an Aegis derived combat
      system, what this really means is that PEO IWS will be involved in the
      combat system from the beginning and not brought in after the fact to
      clean up the non-standardized mess that LCS brought.”
      could you expound on that for a layman, please?

      • airider

        NIFC = Navy Integrated Fire Control.

        Spec doesn’t list Link-16, but it is already integrated in Aegis, SSDS and the Coast Guard NSC’s. It is part of the NIFC design and is installed on over 3000 aircraft and ships. Lots of sensors if you can get the data.

        Rotators have been contributing since the 80’s. The whole point of NIFC is you can use any sensors to build an overall cohesive track picture that may be used for fire control if the sensor information is “good enough”

        PEO IWS, the program office in charge of combat systems for the Navy was not involved in the combat systems used in LCS. Each vendor picked their own and fielded it as a complete package in ship delivery. All the other Navy program offices were cut out of the effort as well and because of this did not allocate, nor received, any resources to support this. When the vendor support came up wanting or unaffordable….you’ve seen the rest of the story unfold over the last decade+.

        • ShermansWar

          Thank you for your insight.

        • ShermansWar

          “PEO IWS, the program in charge of combat systems for the Navy was not
          involved in the combat systems used in LCS. Each vendor picked their
          own and fielded it as a complete package in ship delivery. All the
          other Navy program offices were cut out of the effort kas well and
          because of this did not allocate, nor received, any resources to support
          this. When the vendor support came up wanting or
          unaffordable….you’ve seen the rest of the story unfold over the last
          decade+.”
          so besides being basically an unarmed vessel, it was even more screwed up than I thought it was. I guess having no real sensors or weapons they assumed it was useless in a fight anyway…..

          • airider

            I’m not going to comment on combat effectiveness, just that the vendors were given the latitude to deliver the ship as they saw fit within the contract…and this is the result.

        • Stephen

          For us old-timers; this is the Grandchild of NTDS. Put the sensors on the hulls that can handle it & share data with deployed units. I remember asking the stupid question when looking at underwater video; why can’t we use this on the surface?

          • airider

            Yep….all of this was wrapped up into the New Threat Upgrade (NTU) …. then all the ships got decommissioned and only Aegis was left. Obviously Aegis is a great performing system, but until they got it out of the UYK realm, the ability to open it up to other ship types and sensor options has been limited.

    • William Sager

      I’ve been saying much the same thing. The LCS hull provides great stealth qualities and uses a small crew. On the other hand it’s a 45 knot hot rod. And while it’s true it seems overpriced, when one looks at European and Asian Frigates of similar sizes they tend to be a little cheaper but have large crews. As for the whole Aegis/Standard missile system to work requires a ship of at least 6500 tones which puts in in a size similar to the China’s Type 52 Destroyers. Logically we should be thinking of ways to ad space in the 3200 ton LCS hull for added anti sub capability and the best way to do that is yank out the Jacuzzi water jets and central GE 2500 Turbine and get a much smaller diesel/electric hybrid with a conventional propeller system. A Frigate could use the extra electrical power for perhaps a small 30/50 kilowatt laser in the future as well as perhaps a couple of autonomous electric drones large enough to carry a dipping sonar.

      • Andy

        This is where I think a new design with a lot taken from commercial shipbuilding, and in the u.s. case offshore supply ships. Hybrid Shaft Generators would be a way to provide a lot of propulsion and electric power with a minimal number of prime movers. You could build a ship the size of an LCS that could meet the 28knot 80% MCR with 2 MTU 20V 8000 like Independence or Spearhead, 2 PA6B 12V generators from LHA/LHD and 2 permanent magnet motors from DRS about the size being used on the flight IIA mod or Korean FFX batch II. A conventional monohull could go further at a faster rate with significantly less gas. 5000 @ 15 or 4500 @ 20 with a significant hotel load to allow for the 600kw reservation requirement starts would not be a challenge.

  • DaSaint

    This is a good start, with some interesting tidbits.

    ‘A competition for FFG(X) is envisioned to consider existing parent designs for a Small Surface Combatant that can be modified to accommodate the specific capability requirements prescribed by the US Navy’ – translation: LCS variants welcome to submit.

    ‘…expand blue force sensor and weapon influence to provide increased information to the overall fleet tactical picture while challenging adversary ISR&T efforts.’ – 21st century radar picket ship w/cyber capabilities.

    ‘This platform will employ unmanned systems to penetrate and dwell in contested environments, operating at greater risk to gain sensor and weapons advantages over the adversary. The FFG(X) will be capable of establishing a local sensor network using passive onboard sensors, embarked aircraft and elevated/tethered systems and unmanned vehicles to gather information and then act as a gateway to the fleet tactical grid using resilient communications systems and networks.’ – To me, they are basically asking for additional volume for deployable sensors and UAVs. Again, this looks similar to the large LCS mission bay advantages vs. traditional combatants. Sounds like a pickup truck.

    ‘..possess the ability to robustly defend itself during conduct of independent operations while connected and contributing to the fleet tactical grid.’ – All about ISR again. High speed is not required for that, but some form of stealth may be, at least contemporary hull-shaping and noise reduction – translates to no water jets.

    ‘Provide robust electromagnetic sensing and targeting capabilities and contribute to force level electromagnetic spectrum control’ – Significant ESM

    ‘Provide electromagnetic information exploitation capabilities and intelligence collection’ – ESM/Cyber

    ‘Service Life of 25 years’ – Translation: Steel hull. The Navy has already admitted that they don’t have enough data on aluminum hull forms beyond 20 years. Austal-built fast ferries often last 20+ years, so it’s not impossible, but it does place the Independence class at a disadvantage vs a steel hull.

    ‘SWaP-C reservation for future Directed Energy and Active EA 26MT, 600kW, 300GPM’ – Space, Weight and Power & low Cost for directed energy. Again, this is calling either for a large volume space to add a power pack container in a 40′ TEU format, or it’s calling for an all electric ship with a significant margin for future directed energy weapons. Or maybe it’s calling for an electric ship with the ability to plug in an additional module. Regardless, it’s not calling for waterjet propulsion, as to date, no one has integrated an electric ship with waterjet propulsion, and I doubt the navy is interested in adding unnecessary complexity to this class.

    But the key point that jumps out at me is the commitment for a 20-ship class. Some have felt that it could have been as low as 12, but 20 is significant, and places the winning yard(s) in a good position for at least 10 years, and possibly longer if additional vessels are required to replace early Burkes and/or early LCS models.

    • Andy

      Incat’s oldest still active aluminum catamarans are now over 30 years old.

      • DaSaint

        Yes, as are several by Austal as well. I would think that aluminum hulls for naval use are a different specification and would have additional strengthening and stiffeners.

  • Corporatski Kittenbot 2.0

    So many designs to chose from….. all the best ones European.
    Will it take the US Navy 20 years to decide what we can all see from day 1?

  • Lazarus

    The RFI s asking for the upgraded LCS. Bet on the modified LCS design as the winner.

    • BULLCRAP Steve. What the US Navy is looking for is something along the Lines of the French version of the FREMM frigate, Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate, The Valour class frigate and even the US Coast Guard’s Legend class Cutter. The LCS is and still is a POS and it took so many years for the US navy to freaking realize what a Mistake they made.

      • MarlineSpikeMate

        Calm down.

    • Corporatski Kittenbot 2.0

      Yet more LCS’s would be like winning the lottery for Chinese and Russian naval commanders.

    • So when do I get to Bitch slap you across the bow in Front of Putin or China

    • Horn

      The RFI is asking for something other than an upgraded LCS. I don’t think you were reading the same RFI as the rest of us. Survivability, reliability, and reduced speed. The LCS would cost a lot more just to be survivable. Reliability has a lot to do with crew size and the complex engine system. Where’s the room to comfortably increase berthing space and they would need a redesign on new engines. Speed is a key factor here. If you reduce the speed of the LCS then you are now wasting space with an exotic hull form specifically designed for high speeds. That’s really inefficient. The RFI does purposely leave the door open for the LCS to compete, however.

  • Ed L

    Guess the Navy doesn’t like The proposed HII design—called the FF4923, which is based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter, would be a long-endurance patrol frigate that could potentially offer greater combat capabilities as well as range and endurance for a lower price. The work could be divided among Huntington and the LCS shipyards. There could be 6 new frigates in 3 years.

    • PolicyWonk

      Well, that call (to not use the Legend-class NSC design) hasn’t (officially) been made as of yet. But don’t expect the navy to be happy about eating crow, because that (far superior) option was provided to them years ago (yet – they still somehow decided to go with both ever-so-inferior LCS variants). NSC is a superior and proven platform: its arctic capable, long legged, has room for growth, reliable, seaworthy, and tough.

      The FF4923 variant of the NSC also has the benefit of a hot production line, the design work being mostly done, parts parity with the USCG variant, and could use many of the same training facilities.

  • JohnQTaxPayer66

    The struggle with the FFG design will also be greatly affected by the flexibility needed to launch and recover UUV or Remotely Operated craft, they can’t design a storage/launch and recovery area based on a single design they need a ramp styke option like the LCS Freedom so there is space for this tech to evolve. Else we end up throwing 750 million at another remote mine hunting platform because it’s the only thing that can fit in the tiny hole of the independence launch and recovery point.

    They really should go with a 55 ship build, it would be the fastest way to get to 350 ships much like how OHP contributed to the ship building goals of the 80s.

    • El_Sid

      Trouble with a ramp is that cutting a big hole in the stern and having it attached to a big open mission bay really reduces your survivability. It’s something that the Type 26 has really struggled with, in the end the British gave up on the idea of a ramp and stuck with davits.

  • old guy

    ATT: VADM Moore. Get some of your retired 03r, 003s and the like to enlighten you on what we should be building. It will just cost you a bit of time and some coffee. It might be very valuable for your decision making.

  • John B. Morgen

    Building frigates is wasting good funds down a rabbit hole; instead, the Navy should be building new Arleign Burke DDGs, and enlarge Burkes as cruisers CGs. Stop wasting valuable spending on warships like the LCS or the Admiral Zumwalts. The Navy needs to be prudent…

    • Secundius

      There IS a proposal for a 10% Larger in Length Arleigh Burke as a Cruiser (aka Strike Cruiser) replacement for the “Tico’s”. But to be honest, I don’t think they’ll ever build it. One reason being that “Generally Atonic” (General Atomics) is Having serious problems trying to get their 64-MJ Rail Gun to work. And there’s a Good Chance that the “Quaker Telephone Pole” might actually be cancelled…

      • John B. Morgen

        Just forget about the rail-gun, but armed it with 155 mm guns instead, but use USMC and Army ammunitions.

        • Secundius

          BAe is already Addressing that question with Rheinmetall GmbH MONARC (PzH.2000) 155mm/52-caliber Gun Tubes. In BOTH Standard Mounts for the “Zumwalt” class and Lightweight Mounts for “Arleigh Burke/Tico” classes. “Excalibur” WON’T Fire out of the “AGS” Gun Tube, so Modified 155mm Field Howitzer Gun Tubes are Replacing those Gun Tubes…

          • John B. Morgen

            The German make a good 155 mm gun, and it should be workable with most of our major warships for surface combat.

          • Secundius

            You should “Google up” the Rheinmetall Sound Suppressor for the 155mm Howitzer!/? But before you do, Take a “Stiff Drink First”…

          • John B. Morgen

            I have a monograph about the gun, and I’ll see the book says anything about sound suppressor. I take it that the gun is quite loud?

          • Secundius

            YES, but it’s NOT the “Loudness” of the Howitzer, but rather the Shape of the Suppressor. That’ll make you Laugh…

          • John B. Morgen

            Finally found my monograph about said subject, but I did not found anything about your sound suppressor. However, are you referring about the muzzle break because it is a bit odd looking that I have ever seen on a SPG weapon system..

          • Secundius

            Rheinmetall GmbH DIDN’T make it for the 15.5cm PzH.2000/MONARC system, but for the German M109 Paladin 155mm…

          • John B. Morgen

            I have a monograph of the M109, so I will look for it.

          • John B. Morgen

            I went through my monographs about the said SPG, and I did not found any mention of said item. I think I may have to add more books to my library. I’ll take your word about said item.

          • Secundius

            I’m surprised that “YouTube” didn’t have it in “File Footage”!/?

            Try (www. thefirearmblog. com/blog/2009/10/16/worlds-largest-gun-suppressor/).

            Sorry about Composition of Website, but this is composed after Two Previous Redactments…

          • John B. Morgen

            Still having problems with USNI News?

          • Secundius

            Them and a Few Others!/? Like their AFRAID of Certain Names being mentioned!/? What did you “Think” of the “Mode of Suppression”…

          • John B. Morgen

            When I was a DOD Auditor it usually took a lot of red flags to suspend a defense contractor from being awarded with additional contracts; although, some contractors did went of out business for very bad management and workmanship–such as Fairchild (aircraft div.). However, in today’s environment for contractors, I don’t think will get nailed to cross as much as they did during the Cold War. The main problem is because the government had allowed too many mergers of defense contractors into only a few companies by the past administrations. Bigger that you are, you could make as many mistakes just because you are a BIG DEFENSE CONTRACTOR.

          • Secundius

            “James J. Kilroy”!/?

        • old guy

          STOP. I read your post and hear myself. When I was SEA03R, in the ’70s, we developed the Linear Accelerator. Rejected it as a gun (Railgun), were indifferent as a missile launcher (Rockoff) and enthusiastic as a catapult. I transferred the program to Lakehurst and they have, brilliantly, reduced it to practice.

          • John B. Morgen

            Why did Lakehurst reduced your project gun?

        • old guy

          In the ’70s, when I was SEA 03R, we developed the Linear Accelerator. Rejected it as a gun (Rail-gun), were indifferent as a missile launcher (Rock-off), and enthusiastic as an aircraft catapult. I transferred the program to Lakehurst and they did an amazing job of reducing it to practice (EMALS).

          • John B. Morgen

            Right now, the rail-gun is a myth until the Navy deploys it, and goes into production because there’s been too much talk about it and less to show for it.

    • Frank Langham

      Welcome to the new “Swarm Modality” … Our competitors (China, Iran, Russia, etc.) are building LOTS of long-range, anti-ship missiles and lots of small missile/patrol boats and airborne delivery platforms … We need lots of smaller, cheaper network nodes that are scattered further and wider, so that we present more targets and smaller targets and so that we can cover large domains with more sensors (radars, etc.) and more (surviving) shooters … Think of splitting a CG into 3 smaller ships … MUCH harder to kill and much better sensor coverage over a wider area. … Think on this.

      • John B. Morgen

        No! Because larger hulls take a lot more effort to sink than smaller hulls like LCS type warships.

        • Frank Langham

          You are mostly in error (respectfully) … While we will ALWAYS need larger ships for operational real-estate and general support functions, distributed lethality is an absolute requirement for any hope of survival and endurance, moving forward. …. More targets require more shooters … Smaller targets are harder to find and harder to hit and it requires a great amount of resources and capabilities to physically find, track, “run-down” and to kill a large number of small-fast platforms …. IF you want to make a case for more Virginias, though, you certainly DO have my support.

          • John B. Morgen

            There’s other means of tracking and attacking small targets, and one of those options is using helicopter gunships. Since most warships of today requires helo-pads; plus, hangars for housing such aircraft. Therefore, it would be quite prudent to deploy such aircraft.

          • Frank Langham

            Indeed, it WILL (read the RFI for the FFGx)

    • old guy

      From your post to SECNAV’s ear!

    • old guy

      From your post to SECNAV’s ear

      • John B. Morgen

        I’m just making a difference, so our Navy will be ready for going up against both the PLAN and the Russian navies.

    • Secundius

      Looks like “Huntington-Ingalls” is OUT OF the Upcoming Frigate Design Competition!/? According to “gCaptain” dated 15 August 2017, “HII” is ordered to Pay ~$9.2-Million USD BACK to the US Government. For Overcharging BOTH the US Navy and USCG in Building Ships…

      • John B. Morgen

        Does that repayment includes interests?

        • Secundius

          According to the US Department of Justice, the ~$9.2-Million is a Settlement “Fine” and not actually a Payback of Money Owed. But at any rate, it probably would “Taint” HII from ANY Possible Future Military Contracts for a Few Years at least. Unless Russia and the PRC decide to Declare WAR on the United States, in which case ALL would be Forgiven…

          • John B. Morgen

            Indeed, war does have that affect on people, whereas the principle fine is thrown out from the window in short time.

          • Secundius

            At a Minimum, “HII” is probably looking at a 1-year suspension in Defense Contracts. A “Storm” that “HII” could probably Weather without difficulties. But anything longer, and “HII” is probably being “Singled Out” as an Example, to “Other” wouldbe Prime Contractors. I wonder if “Boeing” is next “As A Spite”…

          • John B. Morgen

            Not going to happen because Boeing is too big, with too many fingers in many contracts.

          • Secundius

            I suspect that “HII” were saying the Same Thing!/? But then again, Trump “Ticket to the Election” did include “Waste In Procurement” in the Defense Establishment (aka Good PR). And AG Jeff Sessions “IS” Donald Trumps “Good Little Pit Bull” in Leading By Example(s), “HII”…

          • John B. Morgen

            I really don’t expect any real changes coming from Trump, in regards to procurement reforms because Trump is surrounded by retired senior staff officers. They will make sure that Trump doesn’t rock the boat, at least not too much. Right now, I don’t even know if the DOD budget has been approved or not. Where are at on this matter?

          • Secundius

            H.R. 2810(115) 2017-2018 ~$696.0-Billion USD Defense Appropriations Budget passed the HOUSE in 14 July 2017 with a 344 to 81 Supermajority Vote (Trump Veto Proof). It has yet to be Voted on by the US Senate.

            Trump’s Budget was ~$93.0-Billion USD LESS…

          • John B. Morgen

            It looks like some House Democrats vetoed with House Republicans. I guess the Senate is holding out for something better. Trump might find himself be powerless within his own political party….

          • Secundius

            The Problem with Donald Trump’s “Marked Deck” (the US Hse.of Rep.) is, that Donald Trump thought HE was the Supplier of the Marked Decks. Yet the US Congress bought from a Different Supplier…

          • John B. Morgen

            I do not see Trump getting anything done for the Navy because of the way things are going against him.

          • Secundius

            I subscribe the the “Library of Congress” through “congress . gov”, which gives me Daily Updates on the “Happening’s” of the US Congress. A “Sadly to Say” Virtually Nothing that Donald Trump is Submitting to the US Congress is being Reviewed and/or Acted Upon…

          • John B. Morgen

            Trump is already a lame duck, and he has not even finished his first year in office. Remarkable for the American history books.

          • Secundius

            Something you might be interested in?/! According to “Le Figaro News” of France. At least Five F-35I’s might have been involved in a Air Attack on Bashar al-Assad’s Palace in 12 January 2017. Which Destroyed a “Fixed” Russian-made S-300 Air Defense Site and a Russian-made “Pantsir-S1” Mobile Air Defense Site. With NO Losses to the Israeli’s. Another Report, yet Un-Confirmed claims that Russian Technicians were Operating those sites. It’s NOT Clear whether Any of them were Killed. The Raid was in Response to Assad-Loyalist Syrians supplying Chemical Weapons to Hezbollah. If TRUE, Israeli just proved the worth of the F-35’s foreseeable future…

          • John B. Morgen

            I would agreed about the F-35Is, but are there any other news sources about this story besides Le Figaro News because it is news to me. I would think Janes’ Information Group would have reported such an event. There’s seems to be a news blackout about this story, however, I’ll checkout this French news report. Thanks!!!

          • Secundius

            The only other source that I’m aware of is from “Al Jazerra”!/? And their Claim was about a “Stealth Jets” and Not about the F-35I(A) “Directly”. And that the Source of the Information was supplied by journalist Georges Malbrunot. Al Jazerra, gave approximate date of the Attack and the Journalist that Reported the Air Strike. It was a matter of Backtracking the Information Sources News Agency. At first I thought it was a Recent Event, and was surprised it took place back in January 2017. I would have thought that “Netanyahu” would have been Bragging about the Event, but then realized that “Bibi” was Playing his “Aces in the Hole” cards close to his chest…

          • John B. Morgen

            I couldn’t find any such story about such an air raid, and I would think such an event would have been leaked to the news media; especially, the Janes’ Information Group or the USNI.

          • Secundius

            I would think so too!/? But than again, that would be an OPEN admission by Vladimir Putin, that TWO RuFed (S-300 and Pantsir-S1) Sophisticated Missile Batteries were Physically Remove by Stealth Aircraft of an Unknown Nation State. Without a Single Loss by the Striking Enemy. Wouldn’t DO Vladimir Putin Export Sales any good Admitting to such an Action. By an Aircraft that HE (Vladimir Putin) has been “Down Playing” as being Virtually Useless…

          • John B. Morgen

            Such event and the type of aircraft that were used against Russian weapon systems would endanger all future Russian arms sales and exports to less friendly nation-states to the United States; such as, Iran..

          • Secundius

            As I said, if true?/! I suspect that the Syrian Presidential Palace was a Test Site, to see if the F-35I(A) “Widget” actually worked. Whit “Iran” being the Next Targets of Opportunity…

          • John B. Morgen

            That is a profound possibility, if true about the F-35I; next Iran’s nuclear and military sites, maybe her oil fields.

          • Secundius

            Sorry about the way I posted the Story Lines!/? Gave up trying to Post Website Address after Fourth “Redactment”. But Story Sites “AS IS”.
            1. Air Force Monthly dated 7 March 2017, Titled: “Have Israeli’s new F-35s seen combat”
            2. The Drive/The Warzone dated 7 March 2017, Titled: “Has Israel Actually Sent The F-35 Into Combat Already”
            3. Snafu-Solomon dated 8 March 2017, Titled: “Forget whether or not the F-35 has seen combat…the real story is the Pantsir
            4. Maps & Conflict Database dated 30 April 2017, Titled: “Reports about Israeli Air Force Strikes against Syrian Army in Quneitra. MSM claims Russian S-300 Destroyed” and
            5. Quora dated 15 April 2017, Titled: “Has the F-35 seen combat”…

  • Randy

    I understand the emphasis for an effective close in weapon and the Mk110 is that. I also understand the desire for the 5″/54 because of its power, but are both weapons at the extreme of the spectrum? Would the Super version of the Mk75 Oto Melara make a jack of all trades median? Large enough to damage bigger ships and small/rapid enough to take on swamps? My personal experience tells me that the accuracy of the Mk75 is un equaled in both the AAA and ASuW environments. The Mk110 will never have the effective AAA range to counter newer missile threats and the 5″/54 is just too slow. In the ASuW scenario, unless you ONLY intend to EVER encounter small craft what level of effectiveness will be acquired with the Mk110! It can’t be a political decision as both are foreign designs. A smart design would actually have both. As for a single helicopter, really? Two should be the only acceptable quantity. Provide a hangar large enough for two and then you have the reserve space for virtually any mission air detachment configuration. Crew size, why 200. Reserve FFG-7 ships operated routinely, and effectively, with less that 140 personnel while maintaining typical four section duty in port, three underway repair lockers and prolonged condition III steaming. Why 200? Even with an air detachment this number should not breach 175 or 180, tops! As for missile load out, eight canister Harpoons and “NOTHING” less that 48 VLS cells (eight for RIM-162 quads and forty for anything else) gives adequate mission flexibility.

    • Adrian Ah

      The problem with what you’ve written is that it makes sense. That’s not the premise of the LCS, nor how those who make decisions think

    • Andy

      I really think they need to look at defining a gun module areas that could fit the 57mm, 76mm, or a similar size weapon and then a large gun zone for 127/62, 127/64 or similar size weapon. Make it easy to modify for export or a change in requirements. As for crew size I don’t know why they don’t also consider their operations model. Might they want blue and gold crews or the ability to fly out a crew to Bahrain or SIngapore for a crew swap? I think the 92 passenger limit of a C-130 is a bit small since the LCS crew landed at 93, but what about a 121 man crew that can ship out on a C-40?

  • Jackson

    Makes you wonder then why the navy accepted built acquired signed off on supported the LCS programs.Politics is why,plus someone higher up knew the ships were not going to fill the role that they were needed for.. So who was in charge of all these failures while in office and let them go on?

  • Michael D Tate

    Where will they mount the long rang Radar (SPS-42) and the Satcom antennas (OE-82) or am I dating myself

    • MarlineSpikeMate

      Yeah..

  • Frank Langham

    THE SHORT-BURKE (BURKE LITE) SOLUTION: I have been perusing this discussion since it was published and I have been actively researching and participating in “The FFG Quandary” discussion ever since BEFORE “Distributed Lethality”, NIFC-CA, and the Blue-Water Pivot (away from LCS) became real and it seems that even the NSC hull would be a tight squeeze for all the desired capabilities (in the RFI) … SO … Perhaps we should be considering a cost-reduced “SHORT BURKE” … Much lighter … Less of everything. By leveraging emerging efficiencies, such as DARPA’s ALIAS program, we can easily cut a Burke’s crew down to less than 170 hands. … Smaller flight deck … Fewer VLS canisters … Smaller guns … Less berthing … SPY-Lite radar suite … How short can a Burke be made? … How much less hangar space and super-structure could we get away with ? … If we put the entire DDG-51(F2) spec on a diet … Could we axe 40% (or even more) of the lifetime cost and still get a real “player” ?

    • Andy

      I’ll beat a best cut on a 40 year old platform with a clean sheet design in an afternoon of work. Plus mine will be small enough 8 shipbuilders can bid on it. Not picking on you, just trying to push people out of the commentary box and get their hands dirty with a design.

  • MarlineSpikeMate

    Not sure on the LRASM, but they are being fitted with NSMs or Harpoons. This is not conjecture.

  • old guy

    Its a joke to see a so-called low radar cross-section ship with so much clap trap on it that it could be picked up by a driverless car radar.

  • Alan

    I’m confused, so I would assume LCS Procurement will stop at 32 Hulls? How many FFG(X) will be built…more wasted time. By the time it all sorted out, and the ships are constructed we will have to decomission our cruisers, PC’s, mine sweepers, not to mention the flight 1 Arleigh Burkes will be getting a little long in the teeth as well, if you assume 30 years on a hull. The LA Boats as well are near the end, the VA’s are not being built fast enough and we will be at a deficit for quite some time.

    We will never get to 350 ships, by 2030 we will be looking at around 226 hulls.

    • Secundius

      NO!/? Flight “0’s” class LCS’s will STOP at 40-Hulls! Flight “I’s” class LCS’s will START at Hull 41…

  • old guy

    The LCSs are a disaster because they sacrificed a lot to provide for “system interchangeability” and should NOT be used as a basis for a new class of frigates.

    SWARM whether with Ocas, Komars, RIBS (manned or unmanned) is a technique that we are only now coming ti recognize. At present we do not have a high probability counter. Arguing caliber and weapon choice, until the problem is properly analyzed, is useless. The 1000 is a poor ship predicated on low Radar cross section, which it does not achieve due to add-ons and unshielded dishes. I, SINCERELY HOPE THAT VADM MOORE addresses this, SOON.

  • turkey

    GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. Why don’t we just buy the FROMME from the French? Why has OPNAV abandoned the Naval Gun Fire Support mission? No wonder the Marines want the F-35B SOONER rather than later; the USMC CANNOT depend on the USN for support.

    • Secundius

      Simple? The cost of a 1942 IOWA class Battleship in 2017 prices would cost ~$1.564-Billion USD each in 1942 Configuration (AS IS). No Modern Electronics and/or Missile Systems. And that’s NOT counting the ~$7.82-Grand USD per 16-inch Projectile times ~1,210-16-inch Projectiles divided within three Magazines. And the fact the 16-inch Gun Tubes (Barrels) had to be Changed after EVERY 290-Rounds Shot, because they Weren’t “Chrome-Lined” like the Japanese Gun Barrels were, at a cost of ~$23.46-Million USD per Barrel in 2017 Prices. It’s much easier and CHEAPER to Produce the Mk.45 5-inch/65-caliber Gun Mount…

  • turkey

    Why is the Navy demanding the retention of the 57mm gun? Cool ammo, lousy caliber. The Europeans and Austrailians are installing 4.5 – 5 inch guns. The only reason I can think of is OPNAV HAS ABANDONED NGFS as a combat requirement. DUMB.

    • Secundius

      Can’t be All That Lousey, Sir!/? It’s used by at least 22-Navys and been in Service since 1962…

  • Ed L

    The 57MM is based on 40+ year old technology. A reliable gun but with limited range not even 5 nautical miles A 76mm range 10 miles, 127mm 15 miles. Now I like to see 2 to 4 on each gator, or 6 on a Carrier alongside SeaRam and maybe one or two on the CGs or DDGs. Quick Draws anyone remember those gunnery exercises