So she's gotten bigger for longer transit time. (Understandable) And the topside has changed for different sensors and weapons. (Ok) And they changed the prop for better acoustic performance. (Uh...ok.) And they got rid of the sonar dome (now wait a f'n minute) and they are already cutting steel without knowing the internal piping layout (stop...just stop).
The reason for choosing a mature, already in service design was so....all this shit didn't have to happen. They're up to $1.6 billion for the first ship **so far**. The latest buy of the Flight III Burke was 2.2 billion per ship.
That is the most common misconception of using a mature design.
A mature design is you have the limitation of the hull platform, so you know your limitations. Literally everything said in the report is more or less expected.
They are trying to build mini destroyers instead of keeping requirements few and simple to speed things up, keep them cheap and then churn more out.
They should have gone with an off the shelf design if this is how things would turn out.
Time to start working on Burke Flight IV
This has to stop. Why can’t we make the LCS cheaper and faster. Or make a cheap mass production variant. We need to produce triple the tonnage per year or the fleet is gonna be engulfed by that of you-know-who.
They bought two more before they had the staff and talent to finish the first one. They began construction based off of the number of documents completed, not design requirements.
This reeks of the same LPD17 and CVN78 nonsense.
You have to get the requirements SET, and then shoot the admirals and build the fucking thing.
[Joking, for the idiots]
Growth is inevitable, but you do it in controlled spirals. Make 1, update and print those fuckers out
Kelly Johnson's 15th rule: “Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don’t know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy.”
Not a bad rule
Requirements creep is always a problem in the defense field, but on things like ships which are such complex systems of systems, and take so fucking long to makes- requirements creep will destroy new efforts
The GAO is important part of the federal government - but what this specific report highlights is the the difference between program requirements today and long term requirements. If the prime & Navy didn't go through the parent class and make modifications, GAO report would instead read like Independence & Freedom LCS getting a pass on survivability requirement.
You also can't use GAO reports to guide program requirements. For perspective just go back in time and pull GAO reports for everything relating to DDG-51 or OPH.
How Constellation will fare in the longterm? Who knows - the reserve buoyancy and CG specs intended for future growth when the program started isn't there anymore. But personally I'd rather go to war and go to sea in a vessel that's experienced a comprehensive damage control analysis and rework instead of just assuming the parent class is fine as is.
If there's a block ii or flight ii and they decide to put in another segment and make a "long hull" Constellation for growth or increasing VLS capacity? have at it.
I think I read an article about the ship sharing 85% commonality with the FREMM but now that's down to 15%. Nearly new hull and they haven't even finished design.
Lack of sonar dome is dumb especially because it was already in the design to begin with. Honestly it feels like there’s dozens of admirals, gov officials, and contractors all trying to fit in their own ideas to get this imaginary perfect design, when honestly we don’t need another class of destroyers. I believe the old saying is “a good plan now is better than a great plan tomorrow.” It just sucks to see a good design gutted and tax dollars wasted.
Because the GAO tells politicians things that the politicians don't want to hear.
They want to hear things that will get them re-elected - not the truth.
As soon as I saw that Marinette was building this class I had zero faith ... Same people that built Freedom class LCS. Not to mention, it looks similar to Freedom class.
That was literally considered from the start by using an existing platform.
People the idea of using an existing platform is so that you know the limits, i.e. weight, center of mass. So yes you would have limited growth in the future, but it will be easier to design your stuff in the present.
It doesn't help to 'know the limits' of a platform when you're basically rebuilding it from the ground up to be something completely different though.
It also doesn't help when you need hulls in the water *now* that constantly adding more equipment then delays the commissioning again and again.
It absolutely does, so you know what you can and cannot add on. It vastly simplified the design process since you have parameters to work with. This was what happen with Ticos when Navy basically rebuild the entire superstructure on Spruance hull form to accommodate SPY-1.
All weapons platform get delays from expected date, that is not something unusual.
It's not simplifying the design though.
Now you have to figure out how to get what you want within the limits of that design.
If they didn't want FREMM capability then they shouldn't have chosen the FREMM as the base.
Which by definition is simplifying, you do not have to go back and forth with hull design.
FREMM is the best base given the mission requirements and design timeline.
Building from ground-up would take a much longer time, development would be in the decades.
FFGX was announced in 2017, so even with delivery in 2029, that is still very fast in term of a modern surface combatant.
France designed and had the first of the class commissioned in 5 years.
2007-2012.
5 years from paper to steel in the water.
It's been 6 years for us already and the first of the Constellation still isn't even design finalized.
So she's gotten bigger for longer transit time. (Understandable) And the topside has changed for different sensors and weapons. (Ok) And they changed the prop for better acoustic performance. (Uh...ok.) And they got rid of the sonar dome (now wait a f'n minute) and they are already cutting steel without knowing the internal piping layout (stop...just stop). The reason for choosing a mature, already in service design was so....all this shit didn't have to happen. They're up to $1.6 billion for the first ship **so far**. The latest buy of the Flight III Burke was 2.2 billion per ship.
That is the most common misconception of using a mature design. A mature design is you have the limitation of the hull platform, so you know your limitations. Literally everything said in the report is more or less expected.
They are trying to build mini destroyers instead of keeping requirements few and simple to speed things up, keep them cheap and then churn more out. They should have gone with an off the shelf design if this is how things would turn out. Time to start working on Burke Flight IV
This has to stop. Why can’t we make the LCS cheaper and faster. Or make a cheap mass production variant. We need to produce triple the tonnage per year or the fleet is gonna be engulfed by that of you-know-who.
They bought two more before they had the staff and talent to finish the first one. They began construction based off of the number of documents completed, not design requirements. This reeks of the same LPD17 and CVN78 nonsense.
You have to get the requirements SET, and then shoot the admirals and build the fucking thing. [Joking, for the idiots] Growth is inevitable, but you do it in controlled spirals. Make 1, update and print those fuckers out
Kelly Johnson's 15th rule: “Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don’t know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy.”
Not a bad rule Requirements creep is always a problem in the defense field, but on things like ships which are such complex systems of systems, and take so fucking long to makes- requirements creep will destroy new efforts
What happened with the LPD17 other than getting rid of the originally planned VLS system?
San Antonio had a TON of issues after launch and through it's first deployment.
They keep this up and we’re gonna end up with Flight XXV Burkes
The GAO is important part of the federal government - but what this specific report highlights is the the difference between program requirements today and long term requirements. If the prime & Navy didn't go through the parent class and make modifications, GAO report would instead read like Independence & Freedom LCS getting a pass on survivability requirement. You also can't use GAO reports to guide program requirements. For perspective just go back in time and pull GAO reports for everything relating to DDG-51 or OPH. How Constellation will fare in the longterm? Who knows - the reserve buoyancy and CG specs intended for future growth when the program started isn't there anymore. But personally I'd rather go to war and go to sea in a vessel that's experienced a comprehensive damage control analysis and rework instead of just assuming the parent class is fine as is. If there's a block ii or flight ii and they decide to put in another segment and make a "long hull" Constellation for growth or increasing VLS capacity? have at it.
I think I read an article about the ship sharing 85% commonality with the FREMM but now that's down to 15%. Nearly new hull and they haven't even finished design.
Off to Fat Boys!
The first class of ships to be put on FEP. What a time to be alive.
America, **FUCK YEAH!** *amazing guitar riff*
Lack of sonar dome is dumb especially because it was already in the design to begin with. Honestly it feels like there’s dozens of admirals, gov officials, and contractors all trying to fit in their own ideas to get this imaginary perfect design, when honestly we don’t need another class of destroyers. I believe the old saying is “a good plan now is better than a great plan tomorrow.” It just sucks to see a good design gutted and tax dollars wasted.
The sonar dome removal was a limitation imposed by the St Lawrence Seaway
The GAO is the most underrated agency within the US government. Period. Why does Congress not listen to them more?
Because the GAO tells politicians things that the politicians don't want to hear. They want to hear things that will get them re-elected - not the truth.
As soon as I saw that Marinette was building this class I had zero faith ... Same people that built Freedom class LCS. Not to mention, it looks similar to Freedom class.
Some senior folks should get bounced publicly; Carlos Del Toro most certainly.
Man, what have you sailors been eating?
Same’s true for most sailors
That was literally considered from the start by using an existing platform. People the idea of using an existing platform is so that you know the limits, i.e. weight, center of mass. So yes you would have limited growth in the future, but it will be easier to design your stuff in the present.
It doesn't help to 'know the limits' of a platform when you're basically rebuilding it from the ground up to be something completely different though. It also doesn't help when you need hulls in the water *now* that constantly adding more equipment then delays the commissioning again and again.
It absolutely does, so you know what you can and cannot add on. It vastly simplified the design process since you have parameters to work with. This was what happen with Ticos when Navy basically rebuild the entire superstructure on Spruance hull form to accommodate SPY-1. All weapons platform get delays from expected date, that is not something unusual.
It's not simplifying the design though. Now you have to figure out how to get what you want within the limits of that design. If they didn't want FREMM capability then they shouldn't have chosen the FREMM as the base.
Which by definition is simplifying, you do not have to go back and forth with hull design. FREMM is the best base given the mission requirements and design timeline.
Except they are good ng back and forth. Which is why development is taking so much longer.
Building from ground-up would take a much longer time, development would be in the decades. FFGX was announced in 2017, so even with delivery in 2029, that is still very fast in term of a modern surface combatant.
Only in the US. Other countries can do it just fine.
Which “other countries" are you referring to?
France designed and had the first of the class commissioned in 5 years. 2007-2012. 5 years from paper to steel in the water. It's been 6 years for us already and the first of the Constellation still isn't even design finalized.
FREMM isn't the best base - or else they wouldn't be rebuilding it from the keel up