Fórum Defesa Brasil

Here’s the latest on the US Navy’s new Constellation-class frigate
By: David B. Larter



The U.S. Navy's rendering of the newly awarded FFG(X). (U.S. Navy)
Correction: The follow-on ships in the Constellation class will cost between $850 million and $950 million in constant-year 2018 dollars.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy’s next-generation frigate, the Constellation class, is a do-or-die effort for the service and a critical test of its return to building ships around existing technologies rather than designing them around technologies in development.

In a roundtable with reporters Friday, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday said the Constellation class will be the model for how the Navy designs and builds the next class of destroyer, the so-called DDG Next. And for that reason, the Navy has to get it right.

“I can’t afford for FFG(X) to be anything but coming off a world-class production line that produces a ship that we can count on,” Gilday told reporters in comments ahead of the annual Surface Navy Association symposium, using an acronym for the service’s future frigate. “That will also inform how we’re going to design and build DDG Next. Those have to be world-class efforts that deliver on time, on budget, with the right capacity, with the right capabilities that we need.”

The idea behind FFG(X) was to build a best-in-breed ship with all the latest technologies on a smaller platform for less money than it would cost to build a comparable number of Flight III DDGs. The ship will use a scaled-down version of the Flight III’s SPY-6 air and missile defense radar, a generational leap over the SPY-1 radar that makes up most of the surface combatant fleet today. The idea behind DDG Next will be to build a ship around a power source sufficient for electronic warfare and laser weapons of the future, which will place enormous and complicated demands on the ship’s power systems.

The Navy awarded the next-generation frigate to Fincantieri in April 2020, and it will be built at the Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin, where the Lockheed Martin-designed Freedom-class littoral combat ship is being built.

As the Navy gets closer to beginning construction on the lead ship, USS Constellation, more details are coming into focus. Here is the latest information on the ship class and what the Navy expects to build:


A rendering of the USS Constellation from a Navy brief delivered at the 2021 Surface Navy Association symposium. (U.S. Navy)

Vital statistics:

Cost: lead ship $1.28 billion; follow-on ships between $850 million and $950 million in constant-year 2018 dollars.
Length: 496 feet
Beam: 65 feet
Fully loaded displacement: 7,291 tons
Propulsion: combined diesel-electric and gas
Major engineering equipment: one gas turbine; two electric propulsion motors; four ship service diesel generators; one auxiliary propulsion unit
Crew accommodation: 200
Expected service life: 25 years
Armament:

MK 110 57mm gun
32-cell MK 41 Vertical Launching System
16 Naval Strike Missiles
MK 49 Guided Missile Launching System
Four MK 53 MOD 9 Decoy Launching System
Two AN-SLQ-32(V)6 Shipboard Electronic Warfare System
One MH-60R Seahawk helicopter plus a UAV
Aegis Baseline 10 Combat System
AN/SPY-6(V3) Phased Array Radar
Timeline:

Start of construction: first quarter of 2022
Keel laid: first quarter of 2023
Launch: first quarter of 2025
Delivery: third quarter of 2026

A 900 milhões USD cada fico a pensar o que conseguiríamos comprar de outros modelos e, mais interessante, o porquê do custo superior de projectos similares (europeus, a FREMM que a inspira, por exemplo)... quais os "detalhes" (e o diabo está nos detalhes) que justificam essa diferença?

LM escreveu: ↑Qua Jan 13, 2021 1:35 pm A 900 milhões USD cada fico a pensar o que conseguiríamos comprar de outros modelos e, mais interessante, o porquê do custo superior de projectos similares (europeus, a FREMM que a inspira, por exemplo)... quais os "detalhes" (e o diabo está nos detalhes) que justificam essa diferença?

Para começar os vários sistemas, é tudo feito com o melhor que eles têm.

Ou seja, como têm uma "economia de escala" muito superior, os sistemas - mais caros - são melhores que os equivalentes instalados em navios europeus do mesmo "segmento"?

Se o meu francês está em dia, as FREMM francesas custaram 670 milhões de Euros cada, no ano fiscal de 2014.
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a14-110-8/a14-1 ... tml#toc308

LM escreveu: ↑Qua Jan 13, 2021 1:35 pm A 900 milhões USD cada fico a pensar o que conseguiríamos comprar de outros modelos e, mais interessante, o porquê do custo superior de projectos similares (europeus, a FREMM que a inspira, por exemplo)... quais os "detalhes" (e o diabo está nos detalhes) que justificam essa diferença?

É um assunto complexo. Primeiros as FREMM têm várias versões, com equipamentos, armamentos diferentes e até tamanhos diferentes.

Common equipment

Leonardo OTO Melara 76/62 mm (compact for FR-ASW / Super Rapid gun with Davide/Strales guided-ammunition for IT-ASW)
2 x torpedo launchers Eurotorp/WASS B515/3[citation needed] for MU 90 torpedoes with Calzoni AHS (Automatic Handling System)
1 x Leonardo NA-25 DARDO-F fire control system for the 76mm cannon
2 x SLAT (Systeme de Lutte Anti-Torpille) anti-torpedo system (into Italian Navy only for ASW version) ASW DLS (Anti Submarine Weapon Decoy Launcher System) based on Thales ALERT sonar system, DCNS RATO command system and WASS CMAT weapon system (with 12 tube launcher for 127 mm's WASS C-310 decoy and jammers)
NH90 helicopter, with capability for AW101, Cougar and Caracal
Thales UMS 4110 CL hull sonar
Thales UMS 4249 CAPTAS4 towed sonar (Italian anti-submarine versions only; fitted to both French ASW and air defence variants[56])
Thales TUUM-6 Underwater Telephone
2 x Sigen MM/SMQ-765 EW system: with JASS (Jamming Antenna Sub System) ECM, Nettuno 4100, by ELT Elettronica and Thales ESM (Communications and Radar ESM)
2 x SOFRESUD Quick Pointing Devices "QPD"

Depois as versões Francesas e Italianas têm muitas diferenças e cada país tem duas versões distintas, uma ASW, outra é AAW que no caso Italiano é "General Purpose". Nenhuma destas versões é particularmente mal equipada, muito pelo contrário, mas o que a versão Norte-Americana de distingue é no tamanho e armamento.

32 Mark 41 VLS cells with:
Possibly RIM-162 ESSM Block 2 and/or RIM-174 Standard ERAM missiles
Planned RIM-66 Standard SM-2 Block 3C
8x or 16x canister launched Over-the-horizon Anti-Ship Weapons (likely Naval Strike Missile)
RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launched from Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System (21 cell)
Mk 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile and related systems.
Various machine guns M240 or M2
Aircraft carried:
1x MH-60R Seahawk helicopter
MQ-8C Firescout

Dito isto, esta não é a minha praia, estou apenas a tirar ilações por mim, podendo as mesmas estarem erradas. Não penses nesta classe algo como as Type 31, mas sim como uma Fragata com mania que é Contratorpedeiro.

cabeça de martelo escreveu: ↑Qui Jan 14, 2021 8:27 am

LM escreveu: ↑Qua Jan 13, 2021 1:35 pm A 900 milhões USD cada fico a pensar o que conseguiríamos comprar de outros modelos e, mais interessante, o porquê do custo superior de projectos similares (europeus, a FREMM que a inspira, por exemplo)... quais os "detalhes" (e o diabo está nos detalhes) que justificam essa diferença?

É um assunto complexo. Primeiros as FREMM têm várias versões, com equipamentos, armamentos diferentes e até tamanhos diferentes.

Common equipment

Leonardo OTO Melara 76/62 mm (compact for FR-ASW / Super Rapid gun with Davide/Strales guided-ammunition for IT-ASW)
2 x torpedo launchers Eurotorp/WASS B515/3[citation needed] for MU 90 torpedoes with Calzoni AHS (Automatic Handling System)
1 x Leonardo NA-25 DARDO-F fire control system for the 76mm cannon
2 x SLAT (Systeme de Lutte Anti-Torpille) anti-torpedo system (into Italian Navy only for ASW version) ASW DLS (Anti Submarine Weapon Decoy Launcher System) based on Thales ALERT sonar system, DCNS RATO command system and WASS CMAT weapon system (with 12 tube launcher for 127 mm's WASS C-310 decoy and jammers)
NH90 helicopter, with capability for AW101, Cougar and Caracal
Thales UMS 4110 CL hull sonar
Thales UMS 4249 CAPTAS4 towed sonar (Italian anti-submarine versions only; fitted to both French ASW and air defence variants[56])
Thales TUUM-6 Underwater Telephone
2 x Sigen MM/SMQ-765 EW system: with JASS (Jamming Antenna Sub System) ECM, Nettuno 4100, by ELT Elettronica and Thales ESM (Communications and Radar ESM)
2 x SOFRESUD Quick Pointing Devices "QPD"

Depois as versões Francesas e Italianas têm muitas diferenças e cada país tem duas versões distintas, uma ASW, outra é AAW que no caso Italiano é "General Purpose". Nenhuma destas versões é particularmente mal equipada, muito pelo contrário, mas o que a versão Norte-Americana de distingue é no tamanho e armamento.

32 Mark 41 VLS cells with:
Possibly RIM-162 ESSM Block 2 and/or RIM-174 Standard ERAM missiles
Planned RIM-66 Standard SM-2 Block 3C
8x or 16x canister launched Over-the-horizon Anti-Ship Weapons (likely Naval Strike Missile)
RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launched from Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System (21 cell)
Mk 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile and related systems.
Various machine guns M240 or M2
Aircraft carried:
1x MH-60R Seahawk helicopter
MQ-8C Firescout

Dito isto, esta não é a minha praia, estou apenas a tirar ilações por mim, podendo as mesmas estarem erradas. Não penses nesta classe algo como as Type 31, mas sim como uma Fragata com mania que é Contratorpedeiro.

Tem ainda o fato de que a US Navy exigiu um reforço estrutural no casco para aumentar sua resistência a danos em combate que segundo consta aumentou quase seiscentas toneladas ao deslocamento do navio). Definitivamente não é apenas um versão com umas poucas modificações nos sistemas. É praticamente uma nova classe de navios. Pensando bem, novecentos milhões de dólares não está caro pra esse navio. Uma FREEM europeia tá custando praticamente o mesmo em dólares americanos.

Glauber Prestes escreveu: ↑Qua Jan 13, 2021 2:44 pm Se o meu francês está em dia, as FREMM francesas custaram 670 milhões de Euros cada, no ano fiscal de 2014.
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a14-110-8/a14-1 ... tml#toc308

A US Navy exigiu uma estrutura bem mais reforçada, como 300 ton a mais de aço. E não é só aço...

knigh7 escreveu: ↑Dom Jan 17, 2021 3:18 pm

Glauber Prestes escreveu: ↑Qua Jan 13, 2021 2:44 pm Se o meu francês está em dia, as FREMM francesas custaram 670 milhões de Euros cada, no ano fiscal de 2014.
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a14-110-8/a14-1 ... tml#toc308

A US Navy exigiu uma estrutura bem mais reforçada, como 300 ton a mais de aço. E não é só aço...

Exatamente.

E sim, acredito que os equipamentos a serem instalados nos Constellation são mais capazes que dos seus pares europeus, e isso ajuda a explicar a diferença de preço (que é de 50-100 milhões de dólares, descontando inflação e alguma variação cambial).

Do site da Fincantieri.

Observe a diferença de deslocamento entre a Classe Bergamini e a Constellation:

Não é só o peso, como também as dimensões.

LO - 144 metros

vs

LO - 151 metros.

...

Navy Future Large Surface Combatant (LSC) (DDG Next)
Program: Background and Issues for Congress

https://beta.documentcloud.org/document ... 00-if11679

Light Carrier Studies Already Underway As US Navy Considers Role For CVLs In Future Fleet
The US Navy’s engineering community has already started conducting light carrier design and engineering studies, even as the Navy and the joint force still consider whether they’d even want to invest in a CVL to supplement supercarriers to bring more distributed capability to the fleet for less cost.
Xavier Vavasseur 03 Feb 2021

This story was originally published by Megan Eckstein, USNI News on February 1, 2021.

The idea of a light carrier resurfaced last summer as a Pentagon-led Future Naval Force Study was nearing its completion. The idea hadn’t appeared in Navy and Marine Corps plans, but then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper had a growing interest in the topic as he sought ways to keep future shipbuilding and sustainment costs down and as he worried about the Navy’s ability to conduct maintenance on its nuclear-powered aircraft carriers at Navy-run public shipyards.

The FNFS and the plan it produced, Battle Force 2045, ultimately recommended between zero and six light carriers and noted much more study would need to be done.

That work is already happening at Naval Sea Systems Command within the engineering and logistics directorate (SEA 05).

Rear Adm. Jason Lloyd, the SEA 05 commander and deputy commander for ship design, integration and engineering, said last week that his Cost Engineering and Industrial Analysis team has been studying different options to understand what operational utility the Navy would get out of each design and for what cost compared to the Ford-class carrier, “and then let the operators really, and the Navy, decide, hey, do we want that capability for that cost?”

“We have looked at an America-class possibility, we have looked at a Ford-class-light, we’ve looked at various different options and done cost studies on all those options. There are also capabilities studies on all those options,” Lloyd said last week while speaking at a virtual event hosted by the American Society of Naval Engineers.

“An aircraft carrier in World War II is not the same as a Nimitz-class carrier; there have been a lot of lessons learned over the years such as being able to do simultaneous launch and recovery, such as being able to safely maneuver aircraft once they’ve landed and still do simultaneous launch. So there’s a lot to an aircraft carrier flight deck that has been lessons learned over the years. So to go to a CVL light that we talked about has some tradeoffs. We say that it could be significantly less expensive, and it can be, it could be less expensive, but there are tradeoffs to that. So we have to go figure out what it’s going to be.”

Lloyd said the team started by dusting off previous carrier studies the Navy has done.


Thirteen U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 122, Marine Aircraft Group 13, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW), are staged aboard the amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) as part of routine training in the eastern Pacific, Oct. 8, 2019. Integrating 3rd MAW’s combat power and capabilities while conducting realistic training is essential to generate readiness and lethality in our units. (U.S. Marine Corps photo illustration by Lance Cpl. Juan Anaya)
“Just because a decision was made 10 years ago does not necessarily mean that decision is the right decision now. When you’re looking at littoral warfare or you’re looking at great power competition, those are two different adversaries, and the weapons that you need to fight those adversaries might be very different,” he said.

Lloyd also acknowledged that the makeup of the carrier air wing has a lot to do with what capability the Navy might want from a light carrier. In looking at previous carrier design studies, he said he realized just how much airplane technology had changed in recent years. For example, while the supercarrier may remain the preeminent design for launching manned aircraft, he said it’s not unreasonable today to think about a light carrier that would launch unmanned vertical-takeoff vehicles.

“I think it’s important to continue to think, hey, how does the change in the current warfare situation, as well as the capability of the weapon on the aircraft carrier, which is really the plane, how is that changing, and how do we capitalize on that?”

Carey Filling, the director of the Surface Ship Design and Systems Engineering directorate at SEA 05, said during the panel presentation that his office too has been heavily engaged with the carrier design work, along with their partners at Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock, even though they typically focus more on surface ships than aircraft carriers.

“I will say that we certainly learned that it is hard to beat the sortie rate of the Ford. The Ford is optimized for its ability to deliver aircraft and ordnance off the ship at a high rate, so it’s hard to match that,” Filling said. “I think the other thing to think about is the range of a nuclear carrier, its ability to move somewhere quickly and its speed, is hard to match.”

Filling and Lloyd were asked about the possibility of using the America-class design for the light carrier, and Lloyd said at this point they “don’t know” if that’s a road the Navy would go down.

Filling said LHDs and LHAs have a boxier design than aircraft carriers due to them having to also ballast down to launch and recover surface connectors in the water. That box shape keeps them from achieving the higher speeds that make a Ford- or Nimitz-class carrier more survivable, he said.

Still, Filling said, “I will say that our current LHD class for most nations is their primary carrier, and so our team has done a lot with the integration of the Joint Strike Fighter that make our current LHDs very capable. I think the limitations are acknowledged, though, that certainly vertical launch aircraft have limitations on range and payload, and that’s why this in-between study was asked for, to see if we could, for Distributed Maritime Operations, provide more carrier attack points than we have currently.”

A version of this post originally appeared on USNI News. It’s been republished here with permission.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ure-fleet/

Eles desde o tempo do General Mattis que eles começaram a olhar para estas e outras coisas com outros olhos.

Exemplos:

Colocar misseis anti-navio em tudo o que flutua (incluindo LHD e LHA e pelo próprio USMC);
Restruturar o Corpo de Fuzileiros para a guerra no Pacifico (conquista de ilhas como na 2ª GM), acabando com as unidades de CC;
Aumento do número de navios e para isso construir uma nova classe de Fragatas, Light Amphibious Warship para o transporte de Fuzileiros (menos de uma Companhia), etc;
Aumento da presença Norte-Americana na região;
...